Actus Reus

Question 1

What is a conduct crime?

Answer 1

Prohibited conduct alone forms the actus reus of an offence

Question 2

What is a consequence crime?

Answer 2

The prohibited conduct and the consequence of it is needed to form the actus reus

Question 3

What is a state of affairs crime?

Answer 3

Actus reus is formed by a single set of circumstances

Question 4

What is an example of a state of affairs crime?

Answer 4

S.4(2) Road Traffic Act 1988, only requirement to satisfy actus reus is that you are intoxicated whilst in control of a motor vehicle

Question 5

What was held in Hill v Baxter?

Answer 5

An act must be voluntary to form the actus reus, unless for a state of affairs crime

Question 6

What was held in R v Mitchell?

Answer 6

There was no requirement that the act had to be directed at the victim to form the actus reus of manslaughter

Question 7

What was held in R v Larsonneur?

Answer 7

The conviction was upheld under the Aliens Order 1920 despite the fact that she did not enter the country voluntarily.
For a state of affairs crime, the actus reus does not need to be voluntary

Question 8

What are the omissions that can form the actus reus?

Answer 8

• Statutory duty
• Contractual duty
• Duty by relationship
• Duty undertaken voluntarily
• Public duty
• Defendant created the situation, so created a duty to act

Question 9

What is the proposed ‘Good Samaritan Law’?

Answer 9

It is already in use under French law; it is where failing to assist people in emergency circumstances should form actus reus by omission

Question 10

How is the Good Samaritan law similarly applied in English law?

Answer 10

Failing to stop at the scene of an accident forms an actus reus by statutory duty under S.170 Road Traffic Act 1988

Question 11

What was held in R v Pitwood?

Answer 11

The defendant was criminally liable as it was his contractual duty to close the gate of the level crossing and he failed to do so

Question 12

What was held in R v Gibbons and Proctor?

Answer 12

If a person acting as ‘loco parentis’ fails to provide adequate care for a child, this will form the actus reus by duty by relationship

Question 13

What was held in R v Evans?

Answer 13

The defendant took in her sister whilst living in her mother’s house, potentially having a duty by relationship, however, the defendant also supplied the heroine causing the overdose so could have a duty to act from creating the situation, similar to DPP v Santa-Bermudez

Question 14

What was held in R v Dytham?

Answer 14

The conviction was upheld as ‘Misconduct in Public Office’ can be formed by an omission

Question 15

What was held in R v Miller?

Answer 15

The defendant started the fire so then had the duty to call the fire service, which they failed to do.

Question 16

What was held in DPP v Santa-Bermudez?

Answer 16

The needle was in the pocket, which created a dangerous situation

Question 17

What was held in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland?

Answer 17

When in the best interests of the patient, failing to treat the patient does not form the actus reus

Question 18

What is the argument surrounding the duty of doctors?

Answer 18

There is a contradiction as doctors cannot ask the patient as they are unresponsive so have to use their judgement/professional opinion and not factual evidence

Question 19

What was held in R v Khan and Khan?

Answer 19

Convictions of gross negligent manslaughter were quashed due to no duty to act. Though it may be argued that:
1. There was a duty by creating the situation, by supplying the heroine.
2. A potential ‘Good Samaritan law’ would form an actus reus by omission in future

Question 20

What is factual cause?

Answer 20

The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence wouldn’t have been caused ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct

Question 21

What was held in R v Pagett?

Answer 21

The conviction of manslaughter was upheld as if it wasn’t for him using his ex-girlfriend as a human shield, she wouldn’t have died

Question 22

What is legal cause?

Answer 22

The defendant may be found guilty if their conduct was more of a minimal cause of the consequence

Question 23

What was established in R v Hughes?

Answer 23

Legal cause as the ‘but for’ test is not enough alone to establish causation

Question 24

What was held in R v Kimsey?

Answer 24

Must be a substantial cause and more than a ‘slight or trifling link’ between the act and the consequence

Question 25

What is the ‘Thin-Skull Rule’?

Answer 25

The defendant must take their victim as they find them

Question 26

What was held in R v Blaue?

Answer 26

The victim was a Jehovah’s Witness and refused blood transfusion to save her life.
The conviction was upheld as the wound was still the substantial cause of death

Question 27

How can the chain of causation be broken?

Answer 27

• Act of a third party
• Victims own act
• A natural but unpredictable event

Providing that the act is independent and serious

Question 28

What was held in R v Smith?

Answer 28

The defendant was convicted of murder as the stab wound was an operating cause of death

Question 29

What was held in R v Cheshire?

Answer 29

The conviction was upheld. Despite the jury finding the actions ‘insignificant’, it was found that since the defendant had shot the victim, actions couldn’t be insignificant and that medical treatment didn’t break the chain of causation

Question 30

What was held in R v Jordan?

Answer 30

The victim died of the medical treatment and not the stab wound. The defendant was not guilty

Question 31

What is the argument between R v Cheshire and R v Jordan?

Answer 31

There is inconsistency as if gunshot wounds in the stomach and thigh are sufficient, stab wounds to the stomach must be sufficient

Question 32

What was held in R v Malcherek?

Answer 32

The test of death is satisfied when the brain stem has died. So the doctor cannot be liable for switching off life-support, and will not break the chain of causation as the victim is already dead

Question 33

What was held in R v Roberts?

Answer 33

Only where the victims acts are daft and not foreseeable to any reasonable person would it break the chain of causation

Question 34

What was held in R v Marjoram?

Answer 34

The defendant was guilty of GBH as it was reasonably foreseeable that they would jump out of the window

Question 35

What was held in Stone and Dobinson?

Answer 35

There was a duty to act undertaken voluntarily and so actus reus was formed by an omission