Actus Reus
Criminal A2
What is Actus Reus
• It is the physical element of a crime. It can be:– An act or
– A failure to act (an omission) or
– A state of affairs
• Usually the Actus Reus will be something the defendant
does but there are situations when a failure to act
(omission) will be sufficient for the Actus Reus
• State of affairs are where the defendant did not act
voluntary. These cases are rare. Larsonneur (1933)
usually strict liability offences e.g. in charge of vehicle
under the influence of drink or drugs
Features of Actus Reus
• Must be a voluntary act
• For some offences there must be a
consequence of the act
• E.g. Assault occasioning actual bodily
harm (S47 offences against the person act
1861) most be some injury
• Theft Act 1968
• When a party appropriates property
belonging to another.
• In Common Law the AR of murder is the
unlawful killing of a person in being under
the Queen’s peace.
Actus Reus
• Each crime has its own actus reus laid
down by Common Law or by statutes. All
interpreted by judges (case law)
• EG.
• Offences Against a Person Act 1861
occurs where a person unlawfully wounds
or causes grievous bodily harm to another.
Involuntary Manslaughter
• Can arise in many different ways. Two of
the main ways are:• Unlawful act manslaughter and
(can not be committed by omission Lowe
1973)
• gross negligence manslaughter (can be
committed by omission Stone V Dobinson
1977, must be a duty of care , omission
failure to act.
Actus reus - Omissions
• Normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an
offence.
• Exceptions
• An act of parliament can create a liability for an omission e.g.
Offence of failing to report a road traffic accident, Failing to provide a
breath specimen
• Other countries have Good Samaritan Law e.g. Paris-Press –
Princess Diana
Omission is only Actus Reus where there is a duty to act. Five ways
this duty arises:
• A contractual duty- Pittwood (1902)
• A duty because of a relationship Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
• A duty which has been taken non voluntarily Stone and Dobinson
(1977)
• A duty through ones of official position Dytham (1979)
• A duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain
of events Miller (1983)
An Omission
• In English law- no good Samaritan law but a
person can be found to be criminally liable
because he has failed to act where he has a
duty to act.
• A famous case highlighting this is:
Pittwood (1902)
A railway employee opened a level crossing to
let a cart pass across the railway line, but had
failed to shut the gates before going to lunch. A
few minutes later; a passing train hit a cart
crossing the track and the driver of the hay cart
was killed immediately. The railway employee
was found guilty of manslaughter.
General rule relating to Omission
• Normally in English law- a person will not
be found to be criminally liable just
because he has failed to act.
• There are however limited exceptions to
this rule!
• There are 5 situations at common law
where there is a duty to act and therefore
a failure to act (omission) creates liability:
But I didn’t
Omission
do
anything!
Exactly!
Under a contract,
especially if it is a contract
of employment.
As in Pittwood 1902,
the railway operative
“had a duty to act
arising out of contract”.
Because of a relationship
Such as Parent and Child
Gibbins and Proctor
Duty
Voluntarily undertaken
e.g.. Care of an elderly
relative.
Stone and Dobinson
Because of a public office,
e.g.. police officer
Dytham 1979
As a result
of a dangerous
situation created
by the
Defendant.
Miller 1983
A State of Affairs
• In exceptional cases- the defendant may be found guilty
of a crime just by being in a state of affairs that has been
declared to be wrong.
• S4 Road Traffic Act 1988
It is an offence to be in charge of a motor vehicle on a
road or public place while unfit to drive through drink or
drugs. The AR of the offence will be present even if the
defendant has decided not to drive the vehicle in
question and has planned to sleep in the car instead.
The state of affairs of being in charge of the vehicle is
enough to establish liability under the section of this Act.
Omissions
Source
Explanation
Examples
Under an Act of parliament
Parliament can word an Act Failing to provide a
so that it is an offence not to specimen of breath(s6 Road
do something
Traffic Act 1988)
A duty at common law
Under contract, especially
of employment
Because of relationship e.g.
Parent Child.
A duty voluntarily
undertaken e.g.. care of an
elderly relative
Because of Public office
e.g. Police man
Pittwood (1902)
As a result of a dangerous
situation created by the
defendant
Other situations where a
duty of care is owed
Miller (1983)
Santana- Bermudez (2003)
Gibbins & Proctor (1918)
Stone V Dobinson (1977)
Dytham (1979)
Khan and Khan (1998)
Wacker (2003)
Duty of Doctors
• There are times when Dr have to stop
treatment. If this discontinuance of
treatment is in the patients best interest
then it is not an omission which can form
part of an Actus Reus
• Airedale NHS trust v Bland (1993)
Task
Activity Pg 12 Jacqueline Martin Criminal
Law for A2.
Answers
Result or Consequence
• However it is necessary in some cases to
show more than just conduct- the result of
the conduct must also be looked at.
• E.g. in the case of murder- the defendant’s
violent act must have resulted in the
unlawful killing.
Proving Actus Reus by Conduct
• Simple conduct of the accused may be
enough to prove AR.
• Eg.
Perjury: Lying under Oath.
Appropriating: by taking property
belonging to someone else- the AR of the
offence will be established
Acts of Parliament can also create
liability for an omission in limited
cases…
• Examples:
• Failing to report a road traffic accident.
• Failing to provide a breath specimen as
required.
(Road Traffic Act 1988)
• Failure to provide a child with adequate
food or clothing.
• (Children and Young Persons Act 1933)
Recap
1. Which two elements must be proved by the
prosecution in order for someone to be
criminally liable?
b. Describe what these two elements are in simple
terms.
6
2. Are there any exception to this rule?
2
3. What is Common Law and how is it different
from statutory law.
2
4. Describe the four ways in which Actus Reus can
be proved.
8
Actus
Reus
Common Law
Statutes
Interpreted by Judiciary
Applied by Judiciary
Case Law
Act
Conduct Crime
Omission
State of
affairs
Result Crime
Summary
• Actus Reus (the physical act) must be voluntary
• Usually an act but can be an omission or state of affair (very rare)
• Omission- failure to do something- only arise were duty to do
something-set by act of parliament
Five ways this duty arises:
• A contractual duty- Pittwood (1902)
• A duty because of a relationship- Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
• A duty which has been taken non voluntarily -Stone and Dobinson
(1977)
• A duty through ones of official position- Dytham (1979)
• A duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain
of events -Miller (1983)
Case Law
Larsonneur (1933)
The defendant had been ordered to leave the UK. She
decided to go to Eire, but the Irish police deported her
and took her back to the UK. She did not wish to go
back and was certainly not doing this voluntarily. When
she landed the UK she was immediately arrested and
charged that being an alien to who leave to land in the
UK had been refused, she had been found in the UK.
She was convicted because she was an alien who had
been refused leave to land and she had been found in
the UK. It did not matter that she had been brought back
by the Irish police against her will
Case Law
Pittwood (1902) a railway crossing keeper
omitted to shut the gates, so that a person
crossing the line was struck and killed by a
train. The keeper was guilty of
manslaughter. A more modern example
would be of a lifeguard at a beach who
leaves his post unattended. His failure to
do his duty could make him guilty of an
offence if a swimmer were injured
Case Law
• Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
• The father of a 7 yr old girl lived with a partner. The
father had several children from an earlier marriage. He
and the partner kept the girl separate from the fathers
other children and deliberately starved her to death.
They were both convicted of murder.
• The father had a duty of feed her because he was her
parent and the mistress was held to have undertaken to
look after the children including the girl, so she was also
under a duty to feed the child. The omission or failure to
feed her was deliberate with the intention of killing or
causing serious harm to her. In these circumstances
they were guilty of murder. The failure to feed the girl
was enough for the actus reus (omission)
Case Law
Stone and Dobinson (1977)
• Stones elder sister , Fanny came to live with the
defendants. Fanny was eccentric and often stayed in
her room for several days. She also failed to eat. She
eventually became bed ridden and incapable of caring
for herself. On at least one occasion Dobinson helped to
wash Fanny and also occasionally prepared her food for
her. Fanny died from malnutrition. Both defendants
were found guilty of her manslaughter. Fanny was
Stones sister, he owed a duty of care to her. Dobinson
had undertaken some care of Fanny and so also owed
her a duty of car. The duty was either to help her
themselves or get help from other sources. Their failure
to do either (omission) of these meant that they were in
breach of their duty
Case Law
Miller
Task
Activity Pg 21 Jacqueline Martin Criminal
Law for A2
Answers
1
2
3
4
Homework
Revise and research the law relating to
Actus Reus so that you can answer one of
the exam questions on Pg 22 of
Jacqueline Martin Criminal Law for A2
You will complete the question as a timed 1
hr essay at the start of the next lesson.
Bibliography
• Martin.J, Criminal Law for A2, Hodder
Arnold, London, 2006
Task
You have spent the last few weeks studying
the Actus Reus.
We need to find out what you know.
Create a Mind Map to show all the
points/facts you know about Actus Reus
Include cases, rules, tests and key features
of Actus Reus.
Circumstances
Conduct
Physical
Elements of a
crime
Elements
Consequences
Actus
Reus
Review
•
•
•
•
Points relating to Actus Reus
Physical Act
Must be voluntary
Omissions- Duty of Care
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Parent, Contractual, dangerous situation, voluntary
Factual Cause
Legal Cause
Causation- medical intervention, contribution intervening acts
Contribution
Consequences
Forseeability
Intervening Acts
Cases
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
R v Miller 1983Omissions
R V Stone and Dobinson 1977
R V Gibbons and Proctor 1918
R V Pittwood 1902
R V Dytham 1979
R V Khan and Khan 1998
Airedale NHS Trust V Bland 1993
R V White 1910 – conduct caused consequence
R V Pagett 1983- Contribution
R V Smith 1959
R V Blaue- thin skull rule
R V Cheshire 1991- breaking C of C
R V Malcherek 1981