Actus Reus CASES Flashcards
R v Larsonneur [1933] Crim. App. R. 74 (CA) -
Defence was a French National who was involuntarily deported from Ireland to the UK. She was charged by the UK for being an illegal alien under the Aliens Restrictions Act 1919. Her conviction was upheld despite the fact she involuntarily came to the UK. The court was only concerned with the reality of the offence
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, The Times (UK, 28 March 1983) -
A drunk man would not leave a hospital. The police brought him outside and then arrested him on the street. He was then charged for ‘being drunk in a public highway’ under section 12 of the Licensing Act
1872. The court said there was no requirement of length of time, and that they did not need to have regard to how he came to the highway. The purpose of the case being to deal with the nuisance of public drunkenness.
- Martin v State of Alabama (1944) 31 Ala. App. 334 (ACA) (USA) -
A drunk man was taken from his home and arrested on the street for being drunk on a public highway. Alabama Court of Appeal overturned the conviction on the grounds that that in order to be convicted you had
kswan Thinkswas f
to be voluntarily in the street.
R v Deller
ク
(1952) 36 Crim. App. R. 184
- The criminal law does not seek to punish people for their evil thoughts only. e.g.
-R v Jakeman (1982) 76 Cr App R 223 -
D booked a flight from Rome to London with the intention to smugole cannabis She abandoned her loose on the lane when the luggage when the luggage arrived, and the drugs were discovered she was charged with being knowingly concerned with
D T
the importation of drugs. D argued she has no mens rea when the drugs entered the country. The court rejected this and said that only her ‘state of mind at the time the relevant act was done’, and not her state of mind when the act had been completed.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police
Where an Actus Reus may be
is ongoing. Fagan was parking his car when he rolled onto a police officer’s foot. (actus reus but no mens rea). When asked to move he did not and was charged with assaulting a police officer in execution of his duty. Fagan argued there was no actus reus when he would not move as he did nothing, although mens rea. Court found that the driving onto the foot and the remaining on the foot were part of a continuing act. Fagan later had mens rea and as the act was continuing Fagan was charged.
R v Miller [1983] ALL E.R. 978
- D was homeless and sleeping in an abandoned building. F went to sleep with a lit cigarette, which caused a fire. He woke to the fire and went back to slee
%
He was convicted with arson, not for starting the fire but for failing to act to prevent further har even though harm was caused accidentally. He initially did not have mens rea as he was not conscious. Miller should have taken reasonable steps to minimise the damage of the fire.
Thabo Meli v R /19541 1 ALL E.R 373*: 4
Defendants were convicted of murder. They beat him
and believing he was dead they threw him off a cliff to make it seem as any medical evidence established he died from exposure at the bottom of the cliff and not the fall or beating.
The defendants appealed the conviction claiming when they formed the intention to kill (mens rea) there was no actus reus as he was still alive, and when they threw him off the cliff they thought he was already dead (no mens rea. Court upheld the initial conviction and stated that the acting of beating him and throwing him off the cliff were one continuous act, there is a causal link.
-R v Church [1965] 2 All E.r. 72 (CA) -
D knocked V unconscious during an argument.
Mistakenly believing she was dead he throw her in the river where she drowned, Manslaughter
conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Jûry entitled to convict if it regards the defendants behaviour as a series of acts which culminated in her death’.
- Rv Le Brun /1991] 4 All E. R 673 (CA) -
D assaulted his wife, knocking her unconscious. While attempting to move her he dropped her and she died. He was charged with manslaughter (no intention but still carrying out an unlawful and dangerous act). He appealed and argued the
- Rv White [1910] 2 KB 124 -
D put poison in his mother’s drink. Medical evidence shows she died of a heart attack and not poison. D convicted of attempted murder. Appeal: ‘but for test’ used, the defendant could not be convicted if it could not be shown that the victim
would have died but for his actions. Test not met = Defendant cannot be convicted of
murder. (Could be guilty of attempted murder).
-R v Dyson (1908)
conduct that accelerates the already inevitable result occurring is also sufficient.
DPP v Murphy [2005]
IECCA 52 (CCA) -
Causation can be inferred from the circumstance even where prosecution cannot establish precise cause of death. In this case Murphy argued just because his semen was found in the body that does not mean he caused the death. The court held that even though the pathologist could not prove the exact cause of death, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant was the cause of death (causation established).
- The problem with this is that it is very simplistic, many things come in to play in the death of someone. The ‘but for’ has difficulty distinguishing between the significant and less significant causes.
- R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273 -
Factual causation found the horse carriage killed the kid, however the defendant was not negligent, in this case culpability could only be established if D was negligent..
-R v Adams [1957] Crim L 365 -
Doctor accused or ‘easing the passing’ of elderly patients through administering them with a cocktail of heroin and morphine. A doctor’spurpose is also to relieve pain, even if this incidentally shortens life it does not amount to murder. This shortening must be more than minimal.
People (DPP) v Davis [2001] 1 IR 146 (CCA) - l
D assaulted V who then fell down the stairs and died. D claimed V had earlier injuries, injuries from the fall and injuries from resuscitation. CCA said that the sole cause of death was the injuries sustained from the assault, it also added that it is sufficient to convict if the ‘injuries caused by the applicant were related to the death in more than a minimal way’.
- R v Hennigan (1971) -
D’s conduct need not be the sole cause. Acknowledged in DPP v Daly
[2009] IECCA 90 - The victim of assault died Iwo months after attack. Judge said the injuries
“don’t have to be the sole cause of death or even the immediate cause of death’ it is sufficient that the actions of the accused contributed in a substantial or significant or meaningful way to the
linkswap
death’.
R v Cheshire -
To fully establish the cause is not too remote, the cause must be operating at the time of the result. The guy shot during an argument, suffered negligent medical treatment. D still found guilty.
R v Jordan [1959]
Crim. App. R. 152 -
D stabbed V. At the time of death V’s wounds had largely healed. Negligent medical treatment contributed to death. V was given medicine which he was allergic to, they also knew V was allergic to the drugs. D’s conviction for murder was quashed on appeal as medical treatment was palpably wrong. The court said the chain of A causation was broken as the proximate cause was no longer the original wound”.
Re a Ward of Court (1995) 2 ILRM 401 -
Shows us that the Irish Court’s would adopt a similar stance. The court said that the true cause of death was not the withdrawal of life support, but the injuries sustained.
R v Longbottom (1849) 3 Cox CC 439 -
D negligently hit a pedestrian with his carriage. V contributed to their death. However, chain of causation not broken even though V was negligent also. D was liable for manslaughter.
- The People (AG) v Gallagher [1972] 1 IR 365 -
Just because V’s actions were one of the causes does not mean liability can be escaped. D’s actions ‘contributed in a real way’ to the death’, and therefore is liable.
