Actus Reus

Question 1

What are the three types of Actus Reus?

Answer 1

Conduct (and omissions)

Concequences

Circumstances

Question 2

What is conduct

Answer 2

Prohbits a certain behaviour, without any particular result or concequence (eg using a firearm).

Question 3

What is Concequences

Answer 3

Require the defendants actions to have a particular result - in other words that they have caused the prohibited event. (eg murder).

Question 4

What are circumstances

Answer 4

An event which is connected to the defendant and does not require a behaviour on their part (eg dog control - agressive dog)

Question 5

What is the general rule for omissions?

Answer 5

The actus reus requires a positive action from the defendant ot fulfil the behaviour specified. In most cases, intnetionally causing harm is a crime, but merey observing wihtout intervention is not, however there are exeptions when the defedant has a duty to prevent harm and their inaction becomes an omission that satisfies actus reus.

Question 6

Exception 1 (omissions)

Answer 6

Specific statutory offences, such as faliure to provide a breath specimen

Question 7

Exception 2 (omissions)

Answer 7

A positive duty to act, (sometimes, even wihtout a specific offense, the law holds that considerations such as autonomy and self-interest are outweighed. this occurs when the defendant is found to to be under a more general legal duty, such as the duty of parents to their children).

Question 8

Omission case 1:

Answer 8

R v Witika: Parents of child convicted of crimes and failing to to provide medical care for thie child. Their omission to get help for the childs injuries led to her death, she would likely have survived if she had been taken to a hospital, but the parents purposfully omitted to seek care knowing she would die.

Question 9

Omission case 2:

Answer 9

JF v Police:
The appelant was charged with failing to protect a child. They drove drunk with a child in the car that was not properly secured in an appropriate seat.

“The approach in determining whether conduct amounts to a major depature is a two step process. the first step is to consider whether there has been a depature from the standard of care expected from a reasonable person. And then consider whether such depature was major by reference to community standards” THIS IS USED FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE BUT IS FROM THIS CASE

Question 10

A special relationship to the harm

Answer 10

An unintentional act creates a legal duty to stop the actus reus. The duty is: to take measures that lie within ones power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created.

Such as in R v Miller: Where the defedant accidentally started a fire and then failed to take any steps to extinguish the fire or prevent damage to property belonging to another, while intending to destroy or damage the property or being reckless about it.

Question 11

What is the Continuing act doctrine

Answer 11

Defendant brings about the AR without MR. If they do nothing to prevent its continuance, they may be liable. This is from Fagan v Commissioner of Metro Police

Question 12

Indirect causation is sufficent

Answer 12

Some causal relationships are easy if there is direct causation. But often there are several steps in between the defendants conduct and the harm.

Question 13

Indirect causation is sufficent

Answer 13

Some causal relationships are easy if there is direct causation. But often there are several steps in between the defendants conduct and the harm.

Question 14

Novus Actus - Natural events

Answer 14

causation will be attributed to the defendant UNLESS the intervening natural event was not reasonably forseeable. It has to be extraordinary.

R v Hart
victim died by drowing. The defendant had severly assulted her and left her on a beach near the water. Not an extraordinary event that she could have drowned as she was near water and unconsciouss.

Question 15

Novus Actus - third persons (4)

Answer 15

The intervention of another WILL NOT break the chain of causation where the intervenors actions are reasonably forsee able as in R v Fleeting.

or the intervenors actions are justified or excused because of the situation that was created by the defendant(and therefore reasonably forseeable) as in R v Tomars

Remeber that the law allows for multiple and concurrent causes, therefore is the defendants actions continue to be a significant and operating cause, and more than a de minimus, then the intervenors actions will be seen as a concurrent cause rather than novus actus.

The actions of a free, deliberate and informed third person will break the chain of causation.

Question 16

Novus actus - medical interventions

Answer 16

the chain WILL break if the medical intervention is independant of, and not a consequence of, the defendants actions

The chain WILL NOT break where the defendants actions are still an operating and significant cause, or is a direct response to the injury caused by the defendants actions.

Question 17

Medical intervention case

Answer 17

R v Wallace - the defendant pour acid on the victims face, which led to the victim becoming depressed and seeking assisted suicide in belgium. A doctor fulfilled his wish to be eiuthanised. The defendant was charged with murder, but it was argued that the doctors actions to assist suicide was free, deliberate and informed. on appeal, it was argued that the doctors actions were directly influences by the defendants actions and it was reasonably forseeable that the victim would want to comit suicide.

Question 18

Novus Actus - the victim

Answer 18

The chain of causation will not be broken if the fright respponse of the victim is in response to the actions of the accused and was reasonably forseeable.

Liev v R:
Defendant kidnapped victim, tied her in the boot of a car. The boot opned while driving and the victim tried to escape but dies due to injuries she sustained escaping from the boot. This did not break the chain of causation as it was reasonably forseeable. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter.

Question 19

Omissions and causation

Answer 19

Omissions cannot break the chain of causation, they will likley be a concurrent cause.

Question 20

Voluntariness - situations which are NOT “involuntray”

Answer 20

Acting under duress or necesity

Acting for a good motive

Question 21

Voluntariness - situations which are considered “involuntray”

Answer 21

loss of physical control (eg, a would not be liable if he was holding a knofe and b pushed c onto that knife with the result that c died)

Impossibility of compliance

impaired consciousness

Before someone is criminally liable, the defendant must be responsible for the behaviour element of the AR. This is met when their behaviour is voulentary.

Question 22

Impaired consciousness

Answer 22

This may be caused by some external force, or an internal condition such as sleep walking or epilepsy. Essential question: whether the defendant was unable to delliberatly controlthat behaviour and to prevent it from occuring.

Question 23

Proof of involuntariness - external cause

Answer 23

Sane automitism. Defendant has the evidential burden to raise a credible narritive. Prosecution then to disprove beyone reasonabe doubt. successful claim ends with full aquittal

Question 24

Proof of involuntariness - internal cause

Answer 24

insane automatism. Burden of proof on defendant on balance of probabilities. Successful claims of insanity end with special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of insanity and then detention in an institution.

Question 25

Antecedent fault

Answer 25

Sometimes even if the AR is involuntary, the defendant might, nevertheless, be responsible. Not necessary to look at the act in isolation from the context - involuntariness must not be the fault of the defendant. If intention is there in some form then that can lend itself to the AR.

R v Wickliff: armed robbery of a jewelery shop, had a gun to threaten, fired gun and killed shop assistant. Defendant argued that firing was a reflex action and therefore not vouluntary, however, he had his finger over the trigger and it was aimed at the attendant, therefore not invoulentary. Manslaughter not murder though because he didnt intend to murder, ony to tthreaten and rob.