actus reus

Question 1

what is the definition of actus reus

Answer 1

is the physical element f a crime know as the guilty act and is prohibited conduct that can be an act, omission or a state of affairs . it must be voluntary and hill v baxter give examples of what would not be voluntary acts for example hitting someone on the head

Question 2

can an omission be an actus reus

Answer 2

the general rule is that an omission cannot be an actus reus of an offence unless unless there is a failure to act when there is a duty to act.

Question 3

The time where there is a duty to act are

Answer 3

stone and dobinson - a man and his wife failed to care for his sister who died of malnutrition

both convicted of manslaughter

Question 4

state affairs

Answer 4

There are some instances where a defendant may be found guilty because of actions against his will, as in DPP v Winzar.

Question 5

CAUSATION

Answer 5

The prosecution must show that the defendant was the factual and legal cause of the consequence.

Question 6

Factual causation

Answer 6

Factual causation is the “but for test” where the defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for” his conduct (Pagett, White, Hughes).

Question 7

operating and substantial cause

Answer 7

Under legal causation, the defendant can be guilty if he was the “operating and substantial cause of the consequence”, which means “significant, more than minimal cause” (Smith)

Question 8

novus actus interveniens (intervening act)

Answer 8

Under legal causation, the chain of causation between the defendant’s conduct and the consequence can be broken by a novus actus interveniens (intervening act) that is not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 9

victim’s own act

Answer 9

The victim’s own act will not break the chain if it was reasonably foreseeable (Roberts, Corbett, Kennedy)

Question 10

act of a third party/contribution of others

Answer 10

The act of a third party/contribution of others will not break the chain if it was reasonably foreseeable (Pagett).

Question 11

Medical negligence

Answer 11

Medical negligence generally will not break the chain of causation unless it is “in itself so potent in causing death” (Cheshire, Jordan).

Question 12

The thin skull rule

Answer 12

The thin skull rule will apply where the consequence is due to a hidden weakness and the defendant
must take his victim as he finds them (Blaue).