Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Actus Reus (Introduction) (Omissions (situations where D can be found…
Actus Reus (Introduction)
Basic Information
The physical element of any crime
Makes up half of all offences
Conduct vs. Consequence
Conduct: no consequence needs to be proved, only the illegal conduct (e.g. taking the item in theft)
Consequence: there must be an illegal conduct, which must lead to the end result (e.g. must be assault/battery - conduct, in s.47, and the consequence is ABH)
Can be broken down into three possible processes
an act
a state of affairs
a failure to act (omissions)
An act
D generally has to 'do' something
the law states that (for the most part) the act must be voluntary
:red_flag: Hill V Baxter
"a person should not be made liable if it is through no fault of his own" - stung by bees, struck with stone, heart attack
:red_flag: Bratty v A-G for NI
"the requirement that the act of the accused is a voluntary act is essential in every criminal case"
"no act is punishable if done involuntarily"
A state of affairs
rarely, D can be guilty even though the AR of the offence was completely involuntary (referred to as state of affairs)
:red_flag: R v Larsonneur :red_flag: R v Winzar
Omissions
situations where D can be found guilty purely because they failed to act
crime must be capable of being committed by omission (has to be a result crime)
D must be under a duty to act
there is no Good Samaritan law in the UK - you will not be guilty if you do not help when you see someone in an 'emergency situation'
6 categories
Causation
when the defendant is charged with any result crime, the prosecution must prove that they caused the actions that caused the prohibited offence
When a problem occurs, the judge must direct the jury that they must be satisfied D was: the factual cause and the legal cause of the prohibited act
Factual causation
'but for' test - must be shown the result would not have occurred as and when it did BUT FOR D's confuct
Legal causation
a factual link is not sufficient for criminal liability alone
there may be people other than D involved so D's involvement must be more than minimal ( :red_flag: R v Kimsey)
it must therefore be proved that D's actions were OPERATING AND SUBSTANTIAL
Thin Skull Rule