Actus Reus

Question 1

R v Dias 2001

Answer 1

D & V regularly used drugs.
D prepared (Jointly bought) heroin for V.
V self administered, later died.
D charged w/ manslaughter.
Held on appeal: Taking heroin not a crime in itself, supplying heroin is.
No causation between unlawful supply/death.
V an adult, self-administered.
Chain of causation broken.

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.

Question 2

R v McKechnie, Gibbons & Dixon 1992

Answer 2

Defendants entered V’s home.
D1/2 damaged property, D3 beat V (An elderly man).
D3 claimed provocation.
V deeply unconscious, head injury.
V had ulcer, operation possible but complicated due to head injury.
Ulcer burst, killing V.
Held: Attack causally linked to death (But for…)
D1/2 convicted of GBH/Crim Dam.
D3 convicted of manslaughter/Crim Dam.
Held on appeal: Charges on D1/2 inconsistent.
If D3 was provoked there could be no joint enterprise of GBH W/ intent.
D1/2 GBH charge quashed.
D3 appeal dismissed (Savage attack)

Question 3

R v Dalby 1981

Answer 3

D (Drug addict) lawfully obtained class A drugs (Prescribed).
Supplied some tablets to V.
Both injected drugs, went out, parted ways.
V injected twice more with another.
D returned, V unconscious.
Wife called ambulance, V declared dead.
D pleaded guilty to unlawful supply of class A drugs, not guilty to manslaughter.
Convicted of manslaughter.
Held on appeal: Unlawful act manslaughter depends upon an act directed at the victim.
Supplying V w/ drugs caused no direct harm, actus reus not made out.
Conviction quashed.

Question 4

R v Roberts 1971

Answer 4

D made sexual advances in his car.
V resisted, D threatened her.
Jumped out of moving car.
D convicted of assault occasioning ABH.
D appealed direction to jury.
Held: Test is whether V's action was reasonably foreseeable and not so daft as to break chain of causation.
V's action within reasonable range.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 5

R (Pretty) v DPP 2002

Answer 5

D suffering degenerative terminal illness.
Wished to avoid distressing death.
Sought permission for husband to assist suicide.
DPP refused.
Appeal: European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms; Article 2, right to self determination.
Article 3, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Article 14, discrimination.
Held: Art. 2 reflected sanctity of life, no positive duty to recognise right to assisted suicide.
Art. 3, D’s suffering resulted from illness, not DPP’s refusal.
Art. 14 engaged only in conjunction w/ other articles. Statute itself not discriminatory.
Appeal dismissed.