Elements of an Offence

ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENCE

• In order for an individual to be found liable for any offence, three elements must be satisfied:

  • There must be guilty conduct by the defendant (actus reus).

  • The defendant must have a guilty state of mind (mens rea).

  • There must be no valid defence (No justification).

• Certain offences are classified as strict liability offences, where the defendant can be guilty without a guilty state of mind.

• Nonetheless, the actus reus must always be proved before a conviction can occur.

ACTUS REUS

• Definition: Actus reus is defined as the guilty act or conduct element of an offence, encompassing all external elements of a crime.

Key Characteristics of Actus Reus:

1. Voluntary Conduct:

   • For an accused to be found guilty, the conduct amounting to the actus reus must be a voluntary action.

   • Example: In Powell v. Texas, if a defendant acted on reflex, then their conduct does not satisfy actus reus.

2. Forms of Actus Reus:

   • An act or omission (conduct).

   • The occurrence of a result (consequence).

   • The existence of surrounding circumstances.

     • In conduct-based crimes, a positive act may be required to satisfy actus reus.

     • In result-based crimes, specific consequences must be established.

Examples:

• Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:

  • The defendant’s actions must wound or cause grievous bodily harm to the victim.

  • Merely assaulting the victim fails to satisfy actus reus without this consequence.

• Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971:

  • A person who destroys or damages property belonging to someone else can be guilty if they intended or were reckless in doing so.

  • Actus reus here is THE DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE OF PROPERTY that belongs to another.

LIABILITY FOR OMISSIONS

• Generally, a defendant must act to satisfy the actus reus of an offence; there is no general requirement under English and Welsh law for a person to act.

• Example: If someone sees another person drowning and does not act, they are likely not guilty of an offence.

Circumstances Imposing Duty to Act:

1. Statutory Duty:

   • Numerous statutes require individuals to act.

   • Example:

     • Section 7(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 makes it an offence to fail to provide a specimen of breath when required by a police officer.

     • Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 imposes an obligation to stop after a road traffic accident.

2. Duty Arising from a Special Relationship:

   • Special relationships where a duty is imposed by law include:

     • a. Care or Control of Children:

     • Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 establishes liability for wilful neglect of a child.

     • Example: A parent failing to save their child from drowning can be liable.

     • b. Assumption of Care for Another:

     • No obligation for a parent to care for an independent adult child, as seen in R v Shepherd (1862).

     • c. Contractual Duties:

     • Court may hold individuals criminally liable if they breach a contractual duty.

     • Example: In R v Pittwood (1902), a gate operator was convicted of manslaughter for failing to close the gates, resulting in a fatal accident.

     • d. Duty Arising out of a Danger of One’s Own Making:

     • If a person creates a dangerous situation, they may be liable for failing to mitigate the danger as shown in R v Miller [1983].

     • Example: The defendant’s failure to extinguish a fire he caused resulted in his arson conviction.

     • e. Medical Treatment:

     • Generally, doctors are required to provide treatment unless a patient refuses it.

     • Example: In Airedale National Health Service Trust v Bland [1993], the court allowed doctors to withdraw treatment from a patient in a persistent vegetative state.

3. Offences Where Omission Never Gives Rise to Liability:

   • Certain offences require a positive act; thus, omissions cannot constitute criminal liability.

   • Offences such as assault, theft, burglary, or rape necessitate active conduct by the defendant.

   • For instance, it is impossible to commit rape without penetration, and failing to act may be seen as a continued act rather than an omission (as per Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]).

CAUSATION

• Definition: Causation refers to the relationship of cause and effect between actions and results in law, particularly in criminal law.

• Causation determines whether the defendant's conduct contributed sufficiently to a prohibited consequence justifying criminal liability.

Categories of Causation:

1. Factual Causation:

   • It's often referred to as ‘but for’ causation (Causa sine qua non).

   • To determine factual causation, ask if the harm would have occurred but for the defendant's action.

   • Example: In R v White, the defendant mixed poison in his mother's drink, but she died of natural causes (heart attack). He was charged with attempted murder, not murder.

2. Legal Causation:

   • This concept is narrower and involves a subjective assessment of the defendant's culpability and the significance of their actions in causing the result.

   • Several conditions must be satisfied:

     • The cause must be substantial (more than minimal).

     • The defendant must exhibit blameworthy behavior.

     • The defendant’s act must be operating at the time of the liability.

   • Example: In R v Henniggan, the court held that as long as the defendant's contribution was substantial, he would be deemed liable.

BREAK IN CHAIN OF CAUSATION: NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

• Even if a defendant factually caused harm, liability may be negated by circumstances termed Novus actus interveniens.

1. Voluntary Intervention by a Third Party:

   • The chain of causation is broken only when the original actions become non-operable.

   • Example: In R v Pagett, the defendant argued that police actions caused death. The court found that his actions were sufficiently operative in the outcome.

2. Victim’s Intervention:

   • If a victim intervenes in a manner that causes their harm, it may break the chain.

   • Example: In R v Royale (1991), the court did not break the chain of causation when the victim jumped to escape perceived danger.

   • In contrast, in R v Kennedy, the court held that voluntary drug injection by the victim broke the chain of causation.

3. Medical Intervention:

   • Poor medical treatment may break the chain if it is independent of the defendant's act.

   • Example: In R v Smith, poor medical handling did not disrupt the chain because the original wounds were substantial causes of death.

   • Conversely, in R v Jordan, the death was predominantly due to incorrect medical treatment applied to healed wounds, thus breaking the chain of causation.

   • Courts may determine that the original act is insignificant relative to the medical treatment’s negligence.

EGGSHELL SKULL RULE

• The rule asserts that a defendant is liable for a victim's injury regardless of the victim's pre-existing vulnerabilities or conditions.

• Example: In R v Blaue, the defendant's stabbing of a Jehovah's Witness led to her refusal of blood transfusions. The court ruled that her beliefs did not break the chain of causation, holding the defendant liable despite the victim's religious choice.