AR: Causation, Omissions, Voluntariness

Question 1

Define Actus Reus

Answer 1

The prohibited act, event or harm which the law wants to prevent from occuring. Typically comprises one or more of behaviour, consequences, circumstances

Question 2

Casuation: But-for test

Answer 2

*Case: White 2 KB 124 (CCA)
*Facts: D put cyanide in his mother’s drink, but she died of an unrelated heart failure before consuming enough.
*Held: D did not cause her death. No conviction for murder.
*Precedent: Establishes the fundamental “but for” test of causation: the result would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct.

Question 3

Legal Causation: Not Too Remote

Answer 3

Hughes:
D was driving without insurance and a license, but his driving was not at fault. The victim stepped out in front of his car and died.
*Held: D did not cause the death by driving.
*Precedent: Establishes that “but for” causation alone is not sufficient; the defendant’s contribution must not be too remote from the consequence to constitute legal causation. Distinguishes between conduct that “sets the stage” and conduct “instrumental in bringing about the occurrence”

Question 4

Legal Causation: Result must be caused by a culpable act

Answer 4

*Case: Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273
Facts: The defendant was driving a horse and cart down a road without holding on to the reigns. A three-year-old child ran in front of the cart and was killed.

Held: The defendant was not liable as he would not have been able to stop the cart in time even if he had been holding the reins. This case is authority for the point that the result must be caused by a culpable act. Here the culpable act was not holding the reins, which was not the cause of death.

Question 5

Legal Causation: More Than Minimal Contribution

Answer 5

*Case: Cato (1976) 62 Cr App R 41; 1 All ER 260 (CA)
*Principle: It is sufficient if the prosecution can establish that the defendant’s act was a cause of death, provided that it was a cause outside the de minimis range, and effectively bearing upon the acceleration of the moment of the victim’s death

Question 6

Breaking the Chain of Causation: Third Party Intervention

Answer 6

• Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority 2 AC 22
• Held: The House of Lords held that the principle was not whether the third party’s act was free, deliberate, and informed but whether it was something normal (which it was) or something extraordinary (which it was not).
• Precedent: A third party’s act will only break the chain of causation if it is extraordinary, not if it is something that could be considered normal in the circumstances

Question 7

Causation and Medical Intervention

Answer 7

• Cheshire (1991) 93 Cr App R 251
• Cheshire: Even negligent medical treatment did not exclude the defendant’s responsibility if the original wound was still an operating and significant cause of death, and the negligence was not so potent as to render the defendant’s acts insignificant

Question 8

Causation and Victim’s Own Act

Answer 8

*Case: Kennedy No. 2 1 AC 269; 4 All ER 1083; Crim LR 222 (HL)
*Principle: Where a fully informed and responsible adult freely and voluntarily self-administers a drug supplied by the defendant and dies, the defendant has not caused the death

Question 9

Causation and the “Thin Skull Rule”

Answer 9

Case: Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271, 3 All ER 446 (CA)
* Principle: The defendant must take their victim as they find them, including their religious beliefs (“thin skull rule”).
* Facts: The victim refused a blood transfusion due to her religious beliefs after being stabbed by the defendant and died.
* Held: The stab wound caused her death, and the refusal of treatment did not break the causal connection.

Question 10

Causation and Foreseeable Intervening Acts (NOT empress)

Answer 10

• R v T
• Principle: If the intervening act is reasonably foreseeable, it generally does not break the chain of causation.
• Held: It is sufficient if the general nature of the intervening act and the risk of non-trivial harm are objectively foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s dangerous and unlawful acts, even if the specific details are not

Question 11

Omissions: General Principle

Answer 11

There is no liability for omissions at common law unless a specific legal duty to act exists

Question 12

Omissions: Duty Arising from Assumption of Responsibility

Answer 12

Case: Stone and Dobinson QB 354; 2 All ER 341 (CA)
* Principle: A duty to act can be imposed when there is a special relationship between the victim and defendant, particularly when the defendant assumes responsibility for the victim’s care by their attempts to look after them

Question 13

Omissions: Duty Arising from Familial Relationship

Answer 13

Case: Instan
* Principle: A duty to care can arise from familial ties, especially when one relative is dependent on another for basic necessities.

Question 14

Omissions: Duty Arising from Contract

Answer 14

Case: Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 (QB)
*Principle: A duty to act can arise from a contractual obligation

Question 15

Omissions: Duty Arising from Creating a Dangerous Situation

Answer 15

*Case: Miller 2 AC 161
*Principle: If a person inadvertently creates a dangerous situation, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to counteract that danger once they become aware of it

Question 16

Omissions: Extension of Miller Principle (Responsibility for Danger)

Answer 16

• Case: Evans EWCA Crim 650
• Principle: A duty to act can arise when the defendant is responsible for creating the danger, even if the direct harm is self-inflicted by the victim.
• Facts: D supplied heroin to her sister, who overdosed. D failed to summon medical help.
• Held: A duty arose in this situation

Question 17

Omissions: Release from Duty of Care

Answer 17

• Case: Smith Crim LR 251 (commentary on estranged spouse cases)
• Principle: A duty of care can be released if the person owed the duty is capable of making a rational decision

Question 18

Omissions and Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Answer 18

Case: Lowe QB 702
* Principle: Omissions do not constitute an unlawful act for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter.

Question 19

Voluntariness: General Principle

Answer 19

Principle: Generally, the actus reus must be voluntary. An involuntary act may give rise to the defence of automatism

Question 20

Voluntariness and Intoxication: Basic Intent Offences

Answer 20

*Case: Majewski AC 443, 474 (HL)
*Principle: For crimes of basic intent (where recklessness is the mens rea), voluntary intoxication is not a defence. A voluntarily intoxicated defendant will be deemed reckless if they would have foreseen the risk had they been sober.
* Examples of Basic Intent Offences: Manslaughter, s. 20 OAPA, assault, battery

Question 21

Voluntariness and Intoxication: Specific Intent Offences

Answer 21

Principle: For crimes of specific intent (where intention is the mens rea), voluntary intoxication can be used as evidence that the defendant did not form the necessary intention.
* Examples of Specific Intent Offences: Murder, s. 18 OAPA, theft, intentional criminal damage

Question 22

Voluntariness and Intoxication: Self-Defence

Answer 22

• Case: O’Grady 3 All E.R. 420, 423 (CA)
• Principle: If a defendant makes a mistake about the need for self-defence due to voluntary intoxication, the defence will fail, regardless of whether the offence is one of specific or basic intent

Question 23

Voluntariness and Intoxication: Dominant Cause Test

Answer 23

• Case: Stripp (1978) 69 Cr. App. R. 318
• Principle: In cases where a defendant’s state involves both intoxication and automatism (e.g., due to a concussion after falling while drunk), the key question is whether the defendant’s state was caused predominantly by their intoxication or by the other factor. If the latter, automatism may be pleaded; if the former, it is voluntary intoxication