ACTUS REUS
-The Actus Reus is the external elements of the offence, it may be and act or an
omission (failure to act)
-It is specific to each individual offence however some offences share the same Actus
Reus e.g. Murder and Manslaughter
-The Actus Reus is found in the definition of the offence
-The definition identifies: -prohibited conduct
&/or-specified circumstances
&/or-specified consequences
-e.g.
-Definition of murder:
‘Unlawful killing of another human being carried out under the Queens
peace with malice aforethought’
-Definition of theft:
‘Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to someone else with
intention for permanent deprivation’
CONDUCT:
-Criminal offences can be divided into 2 types:
-Result crimes
-Conduct crimes
-Notice above that the definition of murder contains a consequence/result (death).
Murder is therefore a result crime
-Theft on the other hand does not have a specified result; theft has a set conduct
(appropriation) that must be carried by D for the Actus Reus to be complete. Theft is a
conduct crime.
-Conduct covers both acts and omissions
ACTS:
-With acts D’s act must be voluntary i.e. it must be carried out under the control and
direction of D’s conscious mind
-If the act is involuntary D may raise the defence of automatism
OMISSIONS:
-Omissions occur where D’s failure to act completes the Actus Reus of the offence
-In general there is no obligation to act to save/prevent harm to others
-Therefore Actus Reus by omission is an exception to the general principle
-A failure to act may comprise the Actus Reus if:
-it is possible to commit the offence by omission according to the definition of the
offence
&-D is under a legal duty to act imposed by common law/statute
LEGAL DUTY TO ACT:
-D is under a legal duty to act:
-common law:
-contract
-public office
-relationship
-assumption of responsibility
-creation of dangerous situation
-statute:
-see definition of offence
Contract:
-D’s breach of contract creates a risk to the public (Pittwood 1902)
-Examples:
-(1)R v Pittwood (1902) – Breached contract by failing to close crossing gate
-(2)Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) – Doctors turning off life support
Public Office:
-This is where D’s public office carries a duty to act
-Examples:
-(3)R v Dytham (1979) – Going off duty police officer
Relationship:
-This is where D’s relationship to V imposes a duty to act. This may be a parent-child
relationship (Gibbons & Proctor 1918), spouse relationship (Smith 1979) etc.
-Examples:
-(4)R v Gibbons & Proctor (1918) – Parents failing to feed child
-(5)R v Smith (1979) – Failing to call doctor to save wife
Assumption of Responsibility:
-Here D voluntarily undertakes the responsibility to care for V
-Examples:
-(6)R v Stone & Dobinson (1977) – D and partner agreeing to look after D’s sister
-(7)R v Khan & Khan (1998) – Drug dealers supplying drugs to V
Creation of Dangerous Situation:
-When D creates a dangerous situation they are then under duty to mitigate subsequent
harm e.g. by reporting a fire they started
-Examples:
-(8)R v Miller (1983) – D failing to call fire brigade after starting fire
-(9)DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2004) – Failing to tell officer of needles in pocket
-(10)Fagan v MPC (1968) – Failing to remove car from officers foot
Comment:
-There have been arguments for a ‘good Samaritan’ as in places such as France or
Holland .It has been suggested that there should be liability if there is no danger to D of
intervening
-However this would produce difficulties such as defining danger, possibility D may
misjudge situation, implication of large numbers present etc.
-Note that there is a moral obligation to act but not a legal one, law is said not to concern
itself with morals
CIRCUMSTANCES:
-Where the definition of the offence contains defined circumstances it is up to the
prosecution to prove the existence of every one
-e.g. for theft the prosecution would have to prove that the stolen property belonged to
someone else i.e. anyone other than the defendant
CONSQUENCES (CAUSATION):
-Crimes with consequences are referred to as result crimes
-It is up to the prosecution to prove that the required consequence came about as a
result of D’s actions i.e. D’s conduct caused the consequence
-It is said that there must be a ‘chain of causation’ between D’s conduct and the result
-Causation looks to deal with the problem of there being 2+ possible causes of the result
-It aim is to decide who should be blamed
-Examples:
-(11)R v Cheshire (1991) – D shot V but intervening medical treatment
-(12)Environmental Agency v Empress Car Co. (1998) – Oil storage tank
-Through these cases it appears that the courts do want to be forthcoming in finding a
chain of causation between D and the result
-In order to prove that a chain of causation exists the prosecution prove that D’s actions
were the:
-Factual Causation
&-Legal Causation
Factual Causation:
-The question is whether D in fact caused the result?
-This can be decided using the ‘but for’ rule; would the consequence have been reached
but for D’s conduct (White 1910)
-e.g. would V have died but for D stabbing them
-Examples:
-(13)R v White (1910) – Tried to poison mother but she died of a heart attack
-If the factual causation can be proved then you move on to proving the legal causation
Legal Causation:
-This is concerned with whether D should be liable for all the consequences of his
conduct and looks to allocate the blame
-It is necessary to limit the consequences for which D can be criminally liable and this is
done by saying that D’s conduct must have been an:
-Operating cause
&-Substantial cause of the result (Smith 1959)
-Note that it does not have to be the only cause, or even the main cause, but merely a
substantial cause
-The word substantial is defined as ‘more than negligible or trifling’ (Kimsey 1999)
-Examples:
-(14)R v Smith (1959) – Soldier who was stabbed and given wrong treatment
Comment:
-Legal causation is a common law principle and hence has built in flexibility to deal with
the ever varying facts of cases requiring causation to be proven
-However, this could be argued to lead to inconsistency in the law
-As the definition is not definitive it is left for the jury to set in relation to the facts of each
individual case
BREAKING THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION:
-Once the chain of causation has been established D may raise the defence that there
were intervening acts that may have broken the chain
-Where there is an intervening act between D’s conduct and the result D should not be
criminally liable for the result
-Events which may break the chain of causation are:
-Naturally occurring events
-Third party conduct
-negligent medical treatment
-actions/reactions of V
Naturally Occurring Events:
-These must be unforeseeable i.e. D could not have predicted the event at the time of
committing the offence
-The event (e.g. hail storm) must also contribute towards the result in order to break the
chain
Conduct of Third Party:
-In order to break the chain the actions of the third party must be carried out; freely,
deliberately and on an informed basis
-The third party conduct must take place between D’s conduct and the result and must
contribute to the result
-Examples:
-(15)R v Latif (1996) – interception of heroin by customs officer
-(16)R v Pagett (1983) – Officer firing at human shield
-(12)Environmental Agency v Empress Car Co. (1998) – Oil storage tank
Negligent Medical Treatment:
-Here there are two general principles
-Firstly, where V was originally criminally injured sound medical treatment will not break
the chain of causation
-Examples:
-(17)R v Malcherek, Steel (1981) – Turning off life support machine
-Secondly, where the wounds/injuries caused by D are still operating even negligent
medical treatment will not break the chain of causation
-Examples:
-(14)R v Smith (1959) – Soldier who was stabbed and given wrong treatment
-(11)R v Cheshire (1991) – D shot V but intervening medical treatment
-(18)R v Jordan (1956) – Chain was broken as treatment ‘palpably wrong’
Comment:
-Compare and contrast with R v Jordan where chain was broken as treatment was said
to be ‘palpably wrong’
-Hence this once again allows for flexibility as the law is not fixed, courts can say that
medical treatment does break the chain
Actions/Reactions of Victim:
-Where V’s conduct contribute to the result it may break the chain of causation
-If V dies as a result of trying to escape or defend themselves the chain will not be
broken (Roberts 1971)
-Examples:
-(19)R v Roberts (1971) – V jumped from car due to fear of assault
-Self neglect will also not break the chain of causation (Dear 1996)
-Examples:
-(20)R v Dear (1996) – V refused medical treatment and worsened wounds
-Under the thin skull rule defendants must take their victim as they find them. This refers
to mental or physical abnormalities (Hayward 1908) and religious beliefs (Blaue 1975)
-Examples:
-(21)R v Hayward (1908) – V died when chased into street by husband
-(22)R v Blaue (1975) – V refused treatment on grounds of religious beliefs
-There is no definite principle in cases where V dies from drugs supplied by D; decisions
vary depending on the facts
-See Homicide – Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Comment:
-Victims conduct will break the chain if it is so daft or unexpected that a reasonable
person would not foresee it
-There is a lack of clear definition of what is meant by daft and there is a thin line
between doing something wrong in the agony of the moment (e.g. Roberts) and doing
something daft
-Could be resolved using thin skull rule; if victim is easily scared into doing something
daft it could be seen as a vulnerability no different to any other abnormality
-However the lack of clear definition does allow the jury some flexibility in deciding cases
and hence the definition is somewhat left for society to set
COINCIDENCE IN TIME IF ACTUS REUS ANS MENS REA:
-The general principle is that AR and MR must coincide in time however may be classed
as a series of acts making up one AR (Thabo-Meli 1954)
-Examples:
-(23)R v Thabo-Meli (1954) – rolled off cliff thinking dead
-(10)Fagon v MPC (1968) – Failing to remove car from officers foot
-(24)R v Le Brun (1991) – Dragged injured wife to avoid detection