Criminal Law [G153]
PRINCIPLES OF
CRIMINAL LIABILITY 1.
Actus Reus
By the end of this unit, you will be able to:



Explain what is meant by the term actus reus, and illustrate your answer with examples
Understand the legal principles of causation and the factors affecting it.
To explain and critically evaluate when an omission [failure to act] may constitute the actus reus of
an offence.
Homework:
During this unit, you will be set the following. In completing homework, you will be expected to do
your own research and supplement your own notes. This is essential to show understanding.
1. Read the Intro to Criminal Elements article and answer the questions at the end of it [the article can be found
either in June 2006’s A Level Law Review, or a scanned version is available in FROG in the law area.]
2. “In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an
omission. However, there are justifiable exceptions to this general principle.”
Assess the truth of this statement by reference to situations where a failure to act may result in criminal
liability.
[June 2005] 50
End of Unit Assessment.
As with AS, you will sit a DRAG test on elements, but this will be done at the end of the Mens Rea unit.
In addition, at A2 you will be expected to complete a series of case notes at the end of each topic. You
will be given two weeks to complete these. The aim is to identify the key cases, their facts (one
sentence) and ratio/obiter. These will be collected in and checked. You do not need to cover all the
cases, only those you feel are key.
1
Criminal Law [G153]
The majority of crimes require both a
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
and an
, both of which must be proved
Actus Reus
The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime and generally speaking should be a positive
voluntary act. However, as you will quickly see this is not a hard and fast rule (there are few
of those in the criminal law). For example there are some situations where the failure to act my be
sufficient for an actus reus... or the act does not even need to be voluntary!
BUT: The general rule is that D’s act or omission should be voluntary.
This means that they don’t do it as the result of a muscle spasm, or other ‘unconscious’ conduct.
Leicester v Pearson (1952)
Facts: D did not stop for
pedestrian on zebra crossing
and hit V.
Ratio:
What kind of behaviour would you class as involuntary?
Types of AR
1. A Consequence or Result Crime
This describes the majority of crimes, where D has committed a particular, positive act or omission.
There must be a tangible outcome. E.g. s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers wounding
with intent – all layers of the skin must be broken!
What is the result of murder?
2. State of Affairs
This is the rarest. This means that D simply finds themselves in a set of circumstances... and it’s these
circumstances which are enough for the AR. Remember the phrase “wrong place, wrong time”? All the
prosecution must prove is that the circumstances exist!
R v Larsonneur (1933)
Facts: D was a French national
who was asked to leave Britain.
She went to Ireland who forcibly
deported her back to GB. On
arrival she was arrested and
charged with being an illegal alien
under Aliens Order 1920
Law:
2
Criminal Law [G153]
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) – This case was explained in the introduction to criminal law!
Facts:
Law:
Conviction was upheld.
The QBD held that the importance was that D was there on the
highway drunk, rather than the involuntary behaviour.
3. Conduct
For these offences the actus reus is simply the prohibited conduct.


Theft is one example. One of the AR elements is the “appropriation of property belonging to
another”. The taking of the property is enough.
Perjury is another example, where D is guilty if they lied under oath in court. It doesn’t matter
whether the lie was actually taken into account in the case.
4. Omissions
*this is a popular essay question in section A – so make sure that you are confident with it*
Not doing something is a crime! These are rare, and we will come back to them… generally, the rule is
that there is no duty to act.
Why?
Look at the following situations and explain whether these people owe a duty to act or not:

A passer-by seeing a car crash and not helping.

A policeman sees a person lying on the floor and does not go to help.

A passer-by sees child pushing another into a river when they know they cannot swim. Would
your answer change if the passer-by was a lifeguard?
3
Criminal Law [G153]
Omissions: When is to not do a crime, a crime?
An omission is a failure to do something. Generally speaking, failing to do something will not impose
criminal liability on you. This is because it can impose an unfair burden on other people.
England & Wales does not have a ‘Good Samaritan’ law, unlike other countries,
like France and the Netherlands. When Diana died in the crash, and the
photographers stood around taking photos, the French threatened to
prosecute them under this law.
The majority of omissions come from common law.

What are the pros and cons of a ‘Good Samaritan’ Law?
PROS
CONS

When is it fair to impose a duty on another person? Which are the most important – moral or legal
duties?

What about Doctors? Should we impose a duty on them?
R v Adomako (1993)
FACTS:
LAW:
What type of duty do you think was owed here?
4
Criminal Law [G153]
Airedale NHS v Bland (1996)
FACTS:
LAW:
So... what do we learn? When will a medical omission not be a crime? Do you agree with this?
Why/why not?
When do I owe a legal duty to act?
So far, the courts have identified five situations which impose a duty on D to act, and may lead to
prosecution if he does not. [Khan & Khan (1998) also leaves open the door for other duty situations to
be developed by the courts.]
1. Duty arising from Specific Relationships.
The most obvious example of a relationship that will give rise to a duty to act, is that of a parent and
child. This has been confirmed by both statute ( s.1 Child and Young Persons Act 1933) and the courts.
R v Gibbons & Proctor (1918)
FACTS:
LAW:
Ds were responsible for her, had failed to feed the child and their
conviction for murder was upheld by Court of Appeal.
5
Criminal Law [G153]
2. Duty Arising from Contractual Obligations
D is under a contractual duty to act (normally because of their job) and if they fail to do so, they may
be liable if lives of others are likely to be endangered as a result.
Which other professions might this include?
R v Pittwood (1902)
FACTS:
D operated a gate at a level crossing which he left
open. A cart crossed the level crossing and was
struck by a train, killing the driver.
LAW:
3. Duty Arising from a Public Office.
What other situations might this cover?
R v Dytham (1979)
FACTS:
LAW:
He was guilty of misconduct in office because he did not protect V or
apprehend the attackers.
Guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform
his duty.
4. Voluntary Assumption of Duty.
If you voluntarily accept responsibility for another, you may be imposed with a duty to act with
regard to that person’s welfare.
R v Stone & Dobinson (1977)
FACTS: Ds were common-law wife & husband of
low intelligence. S’s sister, Fanny, came to live
with them. She was an anorexic, and would stay
in her bedroom. She eventually became ill,
confined to bed and died of malnutrition and blood
poisoning. Neither D had sought medical help.
LAW:
6
Criminal Law [G153]
5. Duty Arising from Dangerous Prior Conduct
If D has created a dangerous situation which creates a risk to another’s life or property, then they are
under a duty to stop or limit the results of the action. If they don’t, then they may be liable for the
results of their action.
R v Miller (1983) READ THE LAW REPORT ENCLOSED, AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
1. What crime was Miller charged with?
2. What is a result [or consequence] crime?
3. What is an omission?
4. Did Miller owe a duty to act?
5. Which legal academics does Lord Diplock refer to in his speech?
6. Was the defendant held liable for damaging the house by falling asleep whilst smoking? Or for
damaging the house by failing to take reasonable steps to put out the burning bed?
7. What if the defendant had found that his nine-year-old child had set the bed on fire and had left it to
burn?
7
Criminal Law [G153]
8. What if the fire had originated in an electrical fault in the wiring of the house when he switched on
his electric blanket?
9. What if the defendant’s fellow squatter had died in the fire?
R v Santana-Bermudez (2003)
FACTS:
LAW:
Ds failure to tell the policewoman of the needle was enough to
convict. He knew the danger and failed to take steps to avert it.
Conviction upheld.
Bonus Marks!!!
1. Statutory Duty to Act
Some statutes also impose on D a duty to act, and have created offences if the act is not completed.
 s.170 Road Traffic Act 1988 states that it is an offence for a driver involved in a road traffic
accident to fail to report an accident to the police.
 S.1 Child and Young Persons Act 1933 states that a parent or guardian can be prosecuted
for failure to look after their child.
 S.6 Road Traffic Act 1988 states that it is an offence to fail to provide a specimen of breath
when asked by a police man to do so.
 S.19 Terrorist Act 2000 states that it is an offence to fail to disclose information.
More recently, the government has created what is more commonly known as “familial homicide”
under s.5 of Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
1. What is the offence created under this act?
2. Why was the mother convicted? What was her ‘omission’?
3. Do you agree with the new law? What kind of situations do you think it was created to
prevent?
8
Criminal Law [G153]
STUDENT TASKS...
Read the following situations and complete the table to shown if there is a duty to act ion each
situation. Explain your answers using relevant cases.
SITUATION
IS THERE A DUTY TO
ACT?
Jack & Isabel are having a picnic
on a farm. Jack lights a fire near
a haystack. The haystack
catches fire, burning down the
barn next to it. Jack and Isabel
run off and do nothing to
prevent the spread of the fire.
Mitch is a lifeguard at a
swimming pool. While on duty,
a child drowns. Mitch didn’t
realise what was happening
because he was chatting to one
of his friends.
Mark starts to look after his
elderly aunt. She is frail and
needs to be helped with her
feeding. After 3 weeks, Mark
gets a new girlfriend. He forgets
to take food to his aunt and she
dies of starvation.
9
EXPLANATION
Criminal Law [G153]
Evaluation
In answering essay questions (Part A of the first paper) your AO2 marks come from the evaluation of
the topic and a critical approach to these cases, and potential problematic areas.
What does this mean?
Simply put, you need to identify the good and the bad things about the current law, and understand
how potential changes might change it.
For each of the areas below, evaluate this area of the law.
Area
What does this mean?
Critically Evaluate
How do you ‘give up’ or ‘end’ a
duty (can you?)
R v Smith, Airedale NHS v Bland, DPP v
Pretty
When is a duty imposed upon
you?
Should we impose standards of
good practice on certain people?
Are they justified?
Should we be more prescriptive
in allocating duties?
Consolidation/ Further Reading:
1. For those of you unsure about this area take a look at the following article: Liability for Omissions
in English Criminal Law p. 20-23 A Level Law Review (January 2007)
2. For those of you aiming for the top grades (B+) read the chapter on omissions from Criminal Law
(4th Edition) Storey and Lidbury p25-35 and use the information to extend your AO2 notes.
10
Criminal Law [G153]
Causation.
In order to prove that D’s actions resulted in the crime, the prosecution must prove the two elements
of causation.
They have to prove a link between the actions of D and the consequence e.g. that D’s act caused the
death of V in the case of murder.
If there is no link or if there is a break in the chain (known as a novus actus interveniens) then D
may not be liable for the harm!
Both elements of causation must be proven.
1. Factual
Based on the facts of the case, did D’s action cause the harm? This is known as the ‘but for’ [sine qua
non] test. Simply put: but for D’s actions, would V have suffered harm? If the answer is no, then D is
not liable.
R v White (1910)
FACTS:
D wanted his inheritance early, and so put arsenic
in his mother’s drink. She drank a little, but
actually died from a heart attack. Was D factually
guilty of her murder?
LAW:
2. Legal
As well as factual causation, they must then prove legal causation. This moves it into moral terrirtory.
Did D’s conduct made a ‘significant’ contribution or was a ‘substantive and operative cause’ to the
outcome. It does not have to be the sole or main cause, but must be more than a minimal cause. This
is known as the de minimus rule.
Look at the case described below. Did D’s actions amount to a “substantive and operative cause” of V’s
death?
V was taken to a hut by D where he was struck over the head with intent to kill him. His unconscious
body was then rolled over a small cliff to make the death appear to be an accident. Medical evidence
showed that he had survived the fall but was died from exposure.
As with the case described above, there can be more than one factor which contributes to the final
outcome. This is described as the chain of causation. To be liable for the act, there must be no break
11
Criminal Law [G153]
in the chain of causation between D’s actus reus and the prohibited consequence. If there is a “novus
actus interveniens”, then D will not be liable for the outcome.
There are three things which may break the chain of causation:
i. Unreasonable actions of V
ii. Unforeseeable actions of a 3rd Party
iii. ‘Palpably wrong’ medical treatment.
1. Unreasonable actions of V.
These may break the chain of causation, but only if they are unreasonable.
R v Roberts (1971)
FACTS:
Law:
D was still liable for the injuries to V as jumping out of the car was a
reasonable action to foresee in the circumstances.
The court added that only really ‘daft’ behaviour by V would break the
chain of causation.
There are a number of other cases on similar facts e.g. William & Davis, where D’s convictions for
manslaughter were quashed. A more modern case is that of Majoram (2000) where V leaped out of
the window, seriously injuring themselves and D’s conviction stood, and V’s actions were within the
range of actions foreseeable by the reasonable person.
2. Unreasonable actions of a Third Party
Again, these will only break the chain if they are unreasonable, and not if they are reasonably
foreseeable.
R v Pagett (1983)
FACTS:
D was on the run from the police, and used
his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield. He
shot at the police, & they shot back, killing
the girlfriend. D argued that the actions of
the police were enough to break the chain of
causation.
Law:
3. ‘Palpably wrong’ medical treatment.
R v Jordan (1956)
FACTS:
Law:
The actions of the doctors did constitute a ‘novus actus interveniens’, and
so D’s conviction was quashed. A very controversial decision, which has in
reality been limited to its exact facts. The court said that had it been a
normal dose, D would have been guilty, even if V was allergic.
12
Criminal Law [G153]
This case has caused a lot of trouble, as all of the following cases seem to contradict it. Really, the way
to look at it is to see it as a case which is decided correctly on its individual facts [Blaue later decided
that Jordan is in effect limited to that this was decided on its individual facts.
R v Smith (1959)
FACTS:
D & V were soldiers who had a fight and one
stabbed the other. On the way to the medical
centre, V was dropped twice, and once there, was
subject to compressions on his chest, which
affected his recovery by up to 75%. V died.
Law:
D’s conviction was upheld.
Despite the fact the medical treatment was incorrect & harmful, D’s actions
were held to be the “operating & substantive” cause of V’s death.
Negligent medical care will not break the chain unless it is ‘so
independent of D’s actions that it renders them insignificant.’
R v Cheshire (1991) READ THE FOLLOWING LAW REPORT AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
BELOW. *KEY CASE*
1. Did Cheshire succeed in his appeal?
2. Outline the main facts of the case
3. Were the doctors to blame?
4. Were the gunshot wounds the substantial and operative cause of death?
5. Why would the courts prefer to blame Cheshire instead of the doctors?
6. Why is Cheshire ‘significantly different than Jordan?
13
Criminal Law [G153]

Switching off a life support machine – is this enough to break the chain of causation?
R v Malcherek & Steel (1981)
FACTS:
Joint appeal. Malcherek had stabbed his wife,
who developed a brain clot, and brain damage.
Steel hit V with a large stone causing severe brain
injuries.
Law:
Thin Skull Rule
What happens if V has a pre-existing condition, weakness or belief which makes the attack on V more
severe? Does this break the chain of causation?
R v Blaue (1975)
FACTS:
Law:
V’s actions were not unreasonable. The court stated the principle that D
takes the victim as they find them.
R v Hayward (1908)
FACTS: D returned home in state of ‘violent excitement’ & wanted to
‘give his wife something’. They fought & V ran from the house in to the
road followed by D. she fell and he kicked her, bruising her arm. She
died. Medical exam showed it was as the result of a persistent thyrus
gland & there was medical evidence to prove that a person with this
condition might die from a combination of fright & physical exertion
Law:
R v Holland 1841 – Blaue follows
Facts:
FACTS:
Ratio:
Ratio:
There is also the more recent case of Dear 1996, where V was slashed with a Stanley knife and refused
treatment. Despite V’s refusal, his appeal was dismissed.
14
Criminal Law [G153]
Group or Paired Tasks:
1. Create a flow chart on the rules of causation, and their effect on the defendant.
2. Complete the following activity, using appropriate cases to support your answer
SITUATION
DID THEY CAUSE THE
RESULT?
Bob rejects Vicky’s advances, so
she stabs him. He is taken to
hospital where it is discovered he
has a rare blood type and the
hospital does not have enough
supplies of his blood. He dies
Gary decides to rob a bank. He
takes his girlfriend with him as a
getaway driver. The robbery goes
wrong and armed police arrive. He
tries to escape and uses his
girlfriend as shield. The police start
firing and his girlfriend dies.
Dave is fed up of his wife. He
decides to kill her and puts an
overdose of arsenic in her morning
tea. She takes a couple of sips and
passes out. Thinking she is dead,
Dave drags her out of the house,
whacking her head on the
pavement. He dumps her in the
skip at the bottom of the street. She
is found and taken to hospital,
where it is discovered that she has
extensive brain damage, and the
doctors declare her dead, turning
off the life support machine.
3. In your own words, explain how the prosecution prove Actus Reus.
15
EXPLANATION
Criminal Law [G153]
SECTION A
Question
Number
1
Answer
Max
Mark
"In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal
liability for an omission. However, there are justifiable exceptions to this general
principle."
Assess the truth of this statement by reference to situations where a failure to act may
result in criminal liability.
Mark Levels
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
AO1
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
1-5
AO2 AO3
17-20
--13-16
5
9-12
4
5-8
3
1-4
1-2
A Level 5 answer is likely to include a number of the following points. These points are neither
prescriptive nor exhaustive. Credit should be given for any other relevant points. Candidates can
be rewarded for either breadth or depth of knowledge.
Assessment Objective 1
Recognise that the vast majority of true crimes involve prohibited conduct e.g. an act in
unlawful killing, an appropriation in theft etc. but identify that some offences may be brought
about by omission e.g. gross negligence manslaughter;
Describe "duty" situations that may arise from:
 statute, public office, common law, close relationship, voluntary assumption of
care,
 creation of a dangerous situation etc.
Cite relevant examples to illustrate some of the above: e.g. Children and Young Persons Act
1933; Adamako; Gibbins & Proctor; Dytham; Pittwood; Stone & Dobinson; Miller; Khan & Khan;
Bermudez.
 Refer to the issues arising in the Bland case.
[25]
Assessment Objective 2
Assess the difficulties in defining the extent of these duties;
Criticise the strict liability context of many omissions in the Road Traffic Acts;
Comment upon the relationship between legal and moral codes of behaviour in this context;
Examine the uncertainty over prescribing or defining when a 'caring duty' ought to be imposed;
Assess the desirability of imposing standards of 'good practice' on the holders of public office;
Analyse the difference between a mere breach of duty and a failure to intervene;
Make reference to the issues in Bland e.g. can a 'carer' be released from their duty?
Analyse the principles concerning coincidence and prior fault discussed in Miller; Fagan etc.
Assess whether the criminal law strikes an appropriate balance in this regard or whether it
may be desirable to adopt a more prescriptive approach c.f. Netherlands / France.
[20]
Assessment Objective 3
Present relevant material in a well-planned and logical sequence, with clearly defined structure
and communicate clearly and accurately with confident use of appropriate terminology;
Demonstrate few, if any, errors of grammar, punctuation and spelling.
16
[5]
Criminal Law [G153]
Principles of Criminal Liability: Actus Reus
Across
5. Law which imposes a statutory duty to help others [4,9]
6. ........ crime, which relies on the consequence to create the actus reus e.g. murder [6]
8. State of ....... Where the AR is created by the circumstances D finds himself in [7]
9. Case illustrating the presumption that you take V as you find them [5]
10. Case establishing that only the unreasonable behaviour of V would break the chain. [7]
12. Name of Stone's sister who died after he and his common-law wife assumed responsibility [5]
15. Case illustrating duties arising from contractual obligations [8]
18. Case illustrating the need to prove that D's actions were the factual cause of the offence. [5]
19. Gibbons and Proctor's relationship to their V [6]
20. de ...... rule which states that D's actions must be more that a minimal cause [7]
21. Oh, so you are allergic to these drugs eh? Well, I'll just give you even more! [6]
22. An example of a conduct crime [7]
Down
1. The second causation test, proving that Ds actions made a 'significant' contribution [5]
2. Oops! the stretcher is a little too heavy for me to carry! [5]
3. The general rule gov1erning Ds actions [9]
4. The two-stage test which must be proved by the prosecution to establish Actus Reus [8]
7. A duty imposed by a law e.g. s.170 Road Traffic Act 1988 [9]
11. French national prosecuted under Aliens Act 1920, despite conduct being involuntary [10]
13. Test to establish factual importance of D's actions to outcome [3,3]
14. Uh oh! My bed is on fire. Oh, well I'll just move rooms [5]
16. A failure to act (8)
17. Don't shoot me girlfriend, even if I shoot you first and she's me shield! [6]
19. R v Dytham illustrates this duty [6,6]
17