Chapter 2 - Actus Reus

Question 1

What is actus reus?

Answer 1

Actus reus is the guilty conduct of the defendant. It is one of the three components required for a conviction.

Question 2

What are the other two components required for a conviction?

Answer 2

Besides actus reus, the prosecution must also prove guilty state of mind (mens rea) and the absence of a valid defense.

Question 3

Is proving actus reus always required for a conviction?

Answer 3

Yes. Proving the actus reus of a crime is always essential to securing a conviction, even in situations where the defendant may not have a guilty state of mind (for example, in strict liability offenses).

Question 4

Where can the actus reus of an offense be found?

Answer 4

Can be found in either statute or case law. It encompasses all elements of the offense definition, excluding the defendant’s state of mind and any potential defenses.

Question 5

What is the actus reus of murder?

Answer 5

The actus reus of murder, as established by common law, is the unlawful killing of a human being.

Question 6

Does the actus reus always require a positive act by the defendant?

Answer 6

Although criminal liability usually involves a positive act by the defendant, this is not always the case. The actus reus may also be proven through a failure to act (omission) or by showing the existence of certain circumstances (state of affairs).

Question 7

What are the three components that might be required to establish the actus reus of an offense?

Answer 7

The actus reus can be established by:
1. An act (or omission) by the defendant
2. The existence of specific circumstances during the defendant’s conduct
3. Specific consequences arising from the defendant’s conduct

Question 8

How do you determine which of the three actus reus elements are required for a specific crime?

Answer 8

To identify the elements needed, you should refer to relevant legislation and case law interpretations for statutory offenses. For common law offenses, court judgments will provide guidance.

Question 9

What are conduct crimes?

Answer 9

Conduct crimes are offenses that mainly involve an act by the accused, though they may also involve an omission to act in specific situations.

Question 10

What is perjury?

Answer 10

Perjury, as defined under s 1 of the Perjury Act 1911, is a conduct crime. It occurs when the defendant willfully makes a false statement under oath, knowing it to be untrue. It is considered a ‘pure’ conduct crime because the focus is on the defendant’s behavior, not the outcome of the statement.

Question 11

What is the key characteristic of result crimes?

Answer 11

In result crimes, the defendant must not only act in a certain way but also cause certain consequences. The prosecution must prove that the defendant’s actions directly led to the prohibited outcome to establish the actus reus.

Question 12

What are some examples of result crimes and what must be proven for each?

Answer 12

• Criminal damage: It must be proven that the property was damaged or destroyed.
• Murder: It must be proven that the defendant caused the death of the victim.

Question 13

Is the distinction between ‘conduct crimes’ and ‘result crimes’ always clear-cut?

Answer 13

No. The distinction is not always straightforward. There can be overlap, as some crimes may require both conduct and a resulting consequence. For example, assault occasioning actual bodily harm involves an act (e.g., punching) and a consequence (harm to the victim).

Question 14

Can you give an example of a crime that requires specific circumstances to exist for the actus reus to be established?

Answer 14

Rape is an example of an offense where specific circumstances must exist. The defendant’s conduct is penile penetration, but the actus reus is only established if it’s proven that the penetration occurred without consent.

Question 15

What are state of affairs crimes?

Answer 15

• The actus reus is satisfied solely by the existence of a particular situation or set of circumstances, regardless of the defendant’s control over the situation.
• This means the defendant can be held liable even if they didn’t actively do anything.

Question 16

Which case exemplifies a state of affairs crime where a French citizen was deported from Ireland to England against her will and was subsequently convicted of being illegally present in the UK. Her presence in the UK, despite having no control over it, was enough to satisfy the actus reus of the offense.

Answer 16

R v Larsonneur (1933)?

Question 17

What is the justification for state of affairs crimes?

Answer 17

State of affairs crimes, also known as offenses of absolute liability, are justified by public policy considerations. The emphasis is on preventing potential harm, even if it means potential unfairness to an individual in specific cases.

Question 18

Can a defendant be held criminally liable for failing to do something (an omission)?

Answer 18

Yes, in certain cases. While most criminal cases involve positive actions, there are situations where the actus reus can be satisfied by an omission to act, meaning the defendant is held liable for failing to do something.

Question 19

What are some examples of statutory offenses that involve liability for omissions?

Answer 19

Statutory offenses involving liability for omissions often occur in road traffic situations, such as failing to stop at a red light or failing to stop after an accident.

Question 20

Are there any offenses that cannot be committed by omission?

Answer 20

Yes. Certain offenses, such as burglary, theft, robbery, and rape, require a positive act by the defendant. It’s impossible to commit these crimes through a mere failure to act.

Question 21

Is there a general duty in England and Wales to help someone in trouble?

Answer 21

No. There is no general legal duty in England and Wales that compels a person to intervene and help someone in danger. A stranger has no legal obligation to save a drowning child, even if they could easily do so without risk to themselves.

Question 22

Does this mean there are no situations where a person can be criminally liable for an omission?

Answer 22

No. There are exceptions to the general rule. Specific situations have been recognized under common law where a failure to act can lead to criminal liability. These exceptions aim to address the potential harshness of the general rule.

Question 23

What is the first exception to the general rule about omissions?

Answer 23

The first exception relates to special relationships. If a special relationship exists between the defendant and the victim, the defendant may be criminally liable for failing to act.

Question 24

What happened in the case of R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)?

Answer 24

In this case, the defendants were convicted of murdering a child who starved to death. The child’s father was found liable due to his parental duty of care. The second defendant, who lived with the father and received housekeeping money, was also convicted because the court determined she had assumed a duty towards the child.

Question 25

Does the principle of special relationships extend beyond parents and children or spouses?

Answer 25

Yes. The principle extends to situations where a person voluntarily assumes responsibility to care for another who is incapable of self-care due to age, illness, or disability.

Question 26

What happened in the case of R v Stone and Dobinson ?

Answer 26

The defendants in this case were convicted of manslaughter for failing to properly care for Stone's sister, who was anorexic and lived with them. The court determined they had assumed a duty of care due to the blood relationship and their attempts to provide some care.

Question 27

What are some criticisms of the R v Stone and Dobinson decision?

Answer 27

The decision is controversial because it raises questions about the scope of duty towards relatives and those staying in one's home. It also highlights the potential for individuals to face criminal liability for well-intentioned but insufficient care.

Question 28

What does Lane LJ's judgment in R v Stone and Dobinson suggest about avoiding liability in such situations?

Answer 28

Lane LJ's judgment indicates that the defendants might have avoided liability had they done nothing at all to help. It seems that liability arises not simply from the relationship but from the assumption of a duty through actions taken.

Question 29

What is the takeaway from the Stone and Dobinson case regarding assuming the role of caregiver?

Answer 29

The case highlights the importance of recognizing the potential legal implications of providing care. Individuals should be aware that ineffective care, particularly if resulting in harm or death, can lead to criminal charges.

Question 30

What is the key point about special relationships that leads to liability?

Answer 30

Liability arises when a special relationship exists and the defendant has assumed a duty of care, such as by accepting payment or accommodation in exchange for care or by inviting someone who needs care to permanently live with them.

Question 31

Does the law provide clear guidance on the boundaries of special relationships and liability for omissions?

Answer 31

No. The law in this area is not entirely clear, particularly regarding when a special relationship is formed. Cases like R v Ruffell (2003) further illustrate this ambiguity, as the defendant was convicted of manslaughter for failing to adequately care for a friend who had taken drugs.

Question 32

What legal challenges arise when a person assumes a duty of care towards a terminally ill family member who refuses help?

Answer 32

This situation raises complex legal questions, as seen in R v Smith (1979). Here, the defendant's wife, who was terminally ill, refused medical help, and he respected her wishes. When she later changed her mind, it was too late, and she died. The case highlights the conflict between respecting a person's wishes and the duty of care.

Question 33

What guidance did the trial judge provide in R v Smith (1979) regarding respecting the wishes of a person refusing help?

Answer 33

The judge instructed the jury to consider the victim's state of health when assessing whether the defendant was released from his duty to act. If the victim could make rational decisions, respecting their wishes might be reasonable, but overriding their wishes might be justified if they were too ill to make such decisions.

Question 34

What additional insight did the case of R v Smith provide regarding special relationships?

Answer 34

The case suggested that a special relationship exists between husband and wife. This, however, was a first-instance decision, and higher courts haven't explicitly ruled on this point.

Question 35

Apart from special relationships, what other situations can give rise to liability for omissions?

Answer 35

Another situation involves a contractual duty to act. If a contract, such as an employment contract, specifies duties to act, failing to fulfill those duties can result in criminal liability.

Question 36

What are some examples of professions where contractual duties to act can lead to criminal liability?

Answer 36

Examples include medical professionals (duty to care for patients), emergency service personnel (duty to maintain public safety), and lifeguards (duty to ensure the safety of pool users).

Question 37

What happened in the case of R v Pittwood (1902)?

Answer 37

The defendant, a railway worker, failed to close a level crossing gate as required by his contract, resulting in a fatality. He was convicted of manslaughter, highlighting how breaching a contractual duty to act can have serious criminal consequences.

Question 38

Can you give a more modern-day example of how contractual duties to act can lead to criminal liability?

Answer 38

In today's context, caregivers and healthcare professionals are often bound by contractual duties. Failing to act according to those duties, especially if it results in harm to those under their care, could lead to homicide charges.

Question 39

What is the more recent development in the law regarding duty to act arising from a dangerous situation?

Answer 39

If an individual creates a dangerous situation and is aware of the danger, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm. Failing to do so can result in criminal liability.

Question 40

What happened in the case of R v Miller ?

Answer 40

A squatter, Miller, fell asleep while smoking, causing the mattress to smolder. Instead of addressing the situation, he moved to another room and went back to sleep. The house caught fire, and he was charged with criminal damage. The court ruled that he was liable because he created a dangerous situation and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent further damage.

Question 41

What is the key principle regarding the level of action required in a situation where an individual has created a dangerous situation?

Answer 41

The law does not expect individuals to act heroically but rather to take reasonable steps to address the danger they created. The specific steps considered reasonable will depend on the circumstances of the situation.

Question 42

Besides common law exceptions, are there other instances where there is a duty to act?

Answer 42

Yes. Various statutory provisions impose a duty to act in specific circumstances. Examples include parents' duty to care for their children under the Children Act 1989 and drivers' duty to stop after an accident under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Question 43

Are there differences between failing to act under a statutory duty compared to failing to act under other types of duties?

Answer 43

Yes, there are some differences. The penalties for failing to comply with statutory duties are usually less severe, often involving fines or license endorsements. Failing to act under contractual duties or special relationships can lead to more serious charges and harsher penalties, especially if the omission results in death.

Question 44

What do some legal scholars find unfair about how breaches of contractual duties to act are prosecuted?

Answer 44

Some find it unfair that individuals are often prosecuted for the consequences of their omission rather than the omission itself. For instance, Pittwood (in R v Pittwood) was charged with manslaughter for causing a death instead of being charged with failing to close the gate, which would likely have resulted in a less severe punishment.

Question 45

What is the requirement for the defendant's conduct to be considered criminally liable?

Answer 45

For the actus reus of an offense that requires conduct, the conduct must be voluntary. The defendant's actions must be willed movements, as opposed to reflex actions or movements over which they have no control.

Question 46

What is the example given in Hill v Baxter to illustrate the concept of voluntary acts?

Answer 46

The court provided an example of a driver being attacked by a swarm of bees. If the driver lost control of the vehicle due to the bee attack, they would not be considered criminally liable for careless driving because their actions would be involuntary.

Question 47

If a defendant claims their conduct was involuntary, what defense might they use?

Answer 47

The defendant might use the defense of automatism. Automatism argues that the defendant acted without conscious control, and it can be successful only if the defendant is deemed blameless for their actions.

Question 48

Provide an example of automatism where a driver might not be considered blameless.

Answer 48

If a driver loses control of their vehicle and causes an accident due to falling asleep, they might argue automatism (involuntary action). However, the court could argue that they were partly to blame because they should have stopped driving when they felt tired.

Question 49

What is causation in criminal law, and to what types of crimes does it apply?

Answer 49

Causation is a legal principle that applies to result crimes. To establish actus reus in a result crime, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant's actions actually caused the prohibited consequence.

Question 50

Explain factual causation and the question it seeks to answer.

Answer 50

actual causation explores whether the defendant, as a matter of fact, caused the victim's death or the prohibited consequence. The key question is: "But for the defendant's conduct, would the victim's death have occurred in the way that it did?" If the answer is 'no,' then factual causation is established.

Question 51

Explain what happened in the case of R v White relating to factual causation.

Answer 51

A defendant poisoned his mother's drink intending to kill her. However, she died of a heart attack unrelated to the poison. The court ruled that the defendant was not liable for murder because his actions did not contribute to his mother's death, failing the 'but for' test.

Question 52

Does factual causation require the defendant's act to be the sole cause of death?

Answer 52

No. It's acknowledged that everyone will eventually die. However, for factual causation to be established, the defendant's actions must have accelerated the death. This acceleration must be significant, meaning "more than negligible."

Question 53

Can you explain the concept of legal causation?

Answer 53

Legal causation goes beyond factual causation. It focuses on whether the defendant's conduct was sufficiently connected to the outcome to justify criminal liability. Essentially, the defendant's act must be a substantial and operating cause of the prohibited consequence.

Question 54

Describe the 'culpable act' principle related to legal causation.

Answer 54

Legal causation requires that the consequence be attributable to a blameworthy act or omission. This means the result must be directly linked to the defendant's actions for them to be held criminally responsible.

Question 55

What happened in the case of R v Dalloway (1847) regarding legal causation?

Answer 55

A defendant was driving a horse and cart without holding the reins when a child ran in front of the cart and died. The court instructed the jury to convict only if they believed holding the reins would have prevented the child's death. The jury acquitted, likely because they felt the culpable act (not holding the reins) did not cause the death.

Question 56

Explain the principle that the culpable act must be 'more than minimal' to establish legal causation.

Answer 56

For legal causation, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's actions were a significant contributor to the outcome. It's not enough for their actions to have a trivial or minimal effect. Their conduct must be the operating and substantial cause of the result.

Question 57

What does R v Malcherek and Steel tell us about legal causation?

Answer 57

This case dealt with victims on life support. The court ruled that if the original injury inflicted by the defendant is still an operating and substantial cause of death at the time life support is withdrawn, the defendant is still liable. This reinforces that the culpable act must be a significant cause, not merely part of the history.

Question 58

Does the culpable act need to be the only cause of the consequence for legal causation to be established?

Answer 58

No. There can be multiple causes contributing to a consequence, and the defendant's act doesn't have to be the sole cause. The key is whether their actions contributed significantly to the outcome.

Question 59

Explain the concept of the 'eggshell skull' rule in relation to legal causation.

Answer 59

The 'eggshell skull' rule states that a defendant must take their victim as they find them. This means that even if a victim has a pre-existing condition that makes them more vulnerable to harm, the defendant is still liable for the consequences of their actions, even if those consequences are unforeseen.

Question 60

What does the case of R v Blaue illustrate about the 'eggshell skull' rule?

Answer 60

The defendant stabbed a woman who refused a life-saving blood transfusion due to her religious beliefs. The court upheld the defendant's conviction for manslaughter, emphasizing that the defendant must take the victim's entire being into account, including their beliefs that might affect medical treatment.

Question 61

What is a novus actus interveniens, and what is its effect on causation?

Answer 61

A novus actus interveniens is a new and intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. If a court determines that such an act has occurred, the original defendant may not be held liable for the consequence, as their actions are no longer the legal cause.

Question 62

In what three situations might arguments regarding a break in the chain of causation arise?

Answer 62

Arguments for a break in the chain of causation often occur in these situations: * When the victim acts in a specific way * When an act by another person intervenes between the defendant's conduct and the result * When an event occurs between the defendant's conduct and the result

Question 63

When will a claim of a broken chain of causation usually fail?

Answer 63

A claim will usually fail if: * The defendant’s injuries were still a substantial and operating cause of death, despite an intervening event. * The intervening act or event was foreseeable, meaning either the defendant or a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility of such an event occurring.

Question 64

What is the general rule regarding a victim’s actions after the defendant’s conduct but before the consequence?

Answer 64

The general rule is that if the victim takes an action that is 'free, deliberate, and informed' (voluntary), it may break the chain of causation. However, this is rarely applied in practice, especially if the defendant's actions significantly contributed to the victim's decision.

Question 65

What are the two potential exceptions to the rule regarding a victim’s voluntary actions breaking the chain of causation?

Answer 65

1. When the victim is trying to escape. 2. When the victim commits suicide.

Question 66

What does the case of R v Roberts (1971) tell us about victims escaping?

Answer 66

The victim jumped from a moving car to escape unwanted sexual advances. The defendant was held liable for assault, as the victim's reaction was considered a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

Question 67

Will the defendant always be liable for injuries a victim sustains while escaping?

Answer 67

Not always. If the victim's actions are considered 'so daft' as to be entirely their own voluntary act, the chain of causation might be broken, and the defendant might not be liable.

Question 68

What factors do courts consider in ‘fright and flight’ cases where a victim is escaping?

Answer 68

Courts assess: * Reasonableness of the escape: Whether the escape was a reasonable response to the situation. * Proportionality of the response: Whether the victim's response was proportionate to the threat. * Voluntariness: Whether the escape was so unreasonable as to be a completely voluntary act. * Agony of the moment: Whether the victim acted impulsively without time to think.

Question 69

What legal considerations arise when a victim commits suicide following the defendant’s actions?

Answer 69

While suicide might be considered a voluntary act breaking the chain of causation, courts have increasingly considered the foreseeability of suicide as a result of the defendant's actions.

Question 70

What does R v Wallace tell us about suicide and causation?

Answer 70

A defendant threw acid on her partner, causing severe injuries that led the victim to choose voluntary euthanasia. The court ruled that the victim's decision didn't necessarily break the chain of causation. The question was whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the victim might take their own life due to the suffering caused by the defendant.

Question 71

Can a third party’s actions break the chain of causation?

Answer 71

Yes. If a third party's act is voluntary and contributes to the consequence, it can be considered an intervening event, potentially breaking the chain of causation.

Question 72

What is the general principle regarding the impact of a third party’s actions on causation?

Answer 72

The general principle is that a defendant won't be liable if a third party's action is: * 'Free, deliberate, and informed' (voluntary). * Not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 73

What happened in the case of R v Pagett (1983) regarding third party intervention?

Answer 73

The defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield, and she was fatally shot by a police officer. The court ruled that the officer's actions were not voluntary (acting in self-defense) and were reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances. Therefore, the officer's actions did not break the chain of causation, and the defendant was held liable for the girlfriend’s death.

Question 74

Can intervening events other than actions by a third party break the chain of causation?

Answer 74

Yes. Natural events can potentially break the chain of causation if they are unforeseeable and become the immediate cause of the victim's death.

Question 75

Give an example of a natural event that might break the chain of causation.

Answer 75

If a defendant injures a victim and leaves them in a building that is subsequently destroyed by an unforeseen earthquake, the defendant might argue that the earthquake was an intervening event that broke the chain of causation.

Question 76

What test is applied to determine if an intervening event breaks the chain of causation?

Answer 76

The reasonable foreseeability test is applied. The court will assess whether the intervening event, such as a natural disaster, was reasonably foreseeable.

Question 77

Provide examples of how the foreseeability of natural events might affect causation.

Answer 77

* Unforeseeable flood: A defendant assaults a victim, leaving them unconscious by a stream. A sudden, unforeseeable flood drowns the victim. The defendant might not be liable for the death, as the flood was not foreseeable. * Foreseeable tide: A defendant assaults a victim, leaving them unconscious on the beach. The tide comes in and drowns the victim. The defendant is likely liable for the death, as the tide is a foreseeable natural event.

Question 78

How has the law regarding causation developed in cases involving medical negligence?

Answer 78

In cases where medical negligence is a factor, courts have developed rules to determine whether the negligence breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s initial actions and the victim’s death.

Question 79

What happened in the case of R v Smith related to medical negligence?

Answer 79

A defendant stabbed a victim who received "thoroughly bad" medical treatment and later died. The court ruled that the defendant was still liable for murder, as the stab wound was still an operating and substantial cause of death, despite the negligence.

Question 80

What does R v Smith tell us about how courts approach intervening medical negligence?

Answer 80

R v Smith established that the defendant's actions need not be the sole cause of death, as long as the original injury remains a significant factor. This suggests courts are reluctant to allow defendants to escape liability by blaming medical negligence.

Question 81

What is the key principle established in R v Cheshire regarding medical negligence?

Answer 81

R v Cheshire further reinforces the idea that medical negligence will rarely break the chain of causation. The court emphasized that even if negligence was the immediate cause of death, the defendant is still responsible unless the negligence was so independent of the defendant's actions and so potent in causing death that the defendant's contribution becomes insignificant.

Question 82

What does R v McKechnie tell us about medical causation?

Answer 82

In R v McKechnie, the defendant's attack prevented the victim from receiving treatment for a pre-existing ulcer, which later burst and caused death. The court upheld the defendant's conviction for manslaughter, demonstrating that even preventing medical treatment can be a substantial cause of death, especially if the decision not to treat was a reasonable consequence of the defendant's actions.

Question 83

What is the overall approach of courts regarding causation in medical cases?

Answer 83

In cases involving medical treatment, courts tend to prioritize the 'but for' test to hold the defendant accountable. They are highly unlikely to accept medical negligence as a break in causation unless it's an extremely exceptional case where the negligence was clearly the dominant factor leading to death.

Question 84

What are the two key elements that the prosecution needs to prove to establish actus reus for murder?

Answer 84

The prosecution must prove both factual causation ('but for' test) and legal causation (substantial and operating cause).

Question 85

What acts or events might break the chain of causation and relieve the defendant of criminal liability for the result?

Answer 85

The chain of causation might be broken by: * An unforeseeable escape by the victim * A voluntary act by a third party * Negligent medical treatment that was so independent and potent that the defendant's contribution becomes insignificant * Events that are not reasonably foreseeable