Actus Reus Flashcards
(12 cards)
What is Actus Rea
A “guilty act”
Conduct element of the crime usually involving a positive, voluntary act but can be an omission or state of affairs
Conduct required is known by looking at words in act of a statutory crime or decisions by courts of common law offences
Why must conduct be voluntary
If D did not will his act, can hardly say he did it
E.g. Hill v Baxter (1958) of D was driving car and bees swarmed in and lost control of car, cannot be dangerous driving as no longer driving
What are the 3 types of crime spending on nature of AR
Conduct crimes: what D does, with no consequence is prohibited e.g. drunk driving under Road Traffic Act 1988 and perjury (false statement under oath)
Consequence crimes: AR must result in a consequence e.g. assault occasioning ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861
Not enough that there is consequence without AR causing that consequence
E.g. Marchant and Muntz (2003) no dangerous driving but still death
State of affairs crime: being in possession of controlled drugs (under Misuse of Drugs Act 1971), D doesn’t have to do anything, just be in possession of drug
E.g. Larsonneur (1933) D deported against will from Ireland to England, charged with being “illegal alien”
Can omissions be AR
The general rule is person is not liable for an omission unless under a duty to act by statutory duties or common law duties
Statutory duty e.g. failure to muzzle dangerous dog in public under Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Contractual duty: Pitwood (1902) railway crossing keeper duty to close gates, AR of manslaughter
Official position: Dytham (1979) police offer stood whilst V beaten up, failed to perform duty whilst in public position
Special relationship: Gibbins and Proctor (1918) farther starved his 7 year old daughter to death, duty to feed, AR murder
Duty undertaken voluntarily: Stone & Dobinson (1977) D took elderly relative and failed to look after her, liable for death
Creating a dangerous situation: Miller (1983) D failed to take reasonable steps to deal with a fire he had started, owed duty of care to call fire brigade, liable when failed
Can doctors stopping treatment be AR
If discontinuing treatment is in best interest of the patient, it is not an omission so does not form AR, est. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
What is causation?
Prosecution needs to show that D caused consequence.
Needs to be determined that:
1. D’s conduct was factual cause of consequence
2. It was the legal cause of the consequence, and
3. Thee was no intervening act that broke the “chain of causation”
What is factual causation?
It must be proved that the unlawful consequence would have not happened but for D’s conduct.
In White (1910) D was acquitted because although he tried to poison mother, she actually died of heart attack, so not factual cause
In Pagett (1983) D was factual cause when used girlfriend as shield and fired against police
Hughes (2013) also shows factual causation is not enough for criminal liability by itself, D was uninsured but crash was V’s fault as on wrong side of road
What is legal causation?
D’s conduct must be more than a minimal cause of the consequence.
E.g. Kinsey (1996) D and V had high speed car chase, V crashed and died, D’s driving did not have to be the “substantial cause of death”
E.g. Benge (1846) D was foreman during work on train track, failed to give warning to approaching train driver and fatal accident occurred. D substantially caused death through negligence
What is thin skull rule?
If V has special characteristics or vulnerability that makes injury more serious, D is liable for more serious injury even if unaware of possibility
D must take victim as he or she finds him
E.g. Blaue (1975) Jehovah witness refused blood transfusion, D still responsible for death
What is an intervening act
Something that breaks the chain of causation and prevents D from liability even if D’s conduct was factual and legal cause.
Can be broken by:
. Unforeseeable act of nature
. Unforseeable act of third party, or
. V’s own behaviour
How can V’s own conduct break chain?
If D causes V to act in a foreseeable way, V’s own act will not break chain.
Question is whether V’s conduct was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
E.g. Robert’s (1971) D made sexual advances, reasonable to jump out of moving car, not broken
E.g. Williams (1992) V jumped out of moving car to avoid his wallet being stolen, disproportionate so broke chain
A free, voluntary and informed action by V can break chain
E.g. Kennedy (No.2) (2007), D supplied V drugs, V self injected and died, D not khabke as V’s act broke chain
How does medical treatment break chain?
Even if negligent, it is unlikely to break chain unless it’s so independent of D’s conduct and “in itself so potent causing death.”
Eg. Smith (1959) after being stalled in fight with D, V was dropped twice on way to treatment centre and left untreated, still found D guilty of murder, stab was still cause of death.
However, in Jordan (1956) D stabbed V, V was helping, doctor gave antibiotics V was allergic to, and V died, treatment so “palpably wrong” it became overwhelming cause of death
According to Malcharek & Steel (1981) doctor turning of life support of brain dead patient will not break chain
