Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ACTUS REUS - Coggle Diagram
ACTUS REUS
STAGE 2: LEGAL CAUSATION
2. Blameworthy
- there must be a link between the blameworthiness of D's conduct and the prohibited result
- R v Dalloway (1847)
- R v Hughes (2013)
-R v Taylor (2016)
3a. Operative
- There must be a complete chain between D's conduct and the prohibited result
- R v Warburton (2006)
- applies to acts and omissions
1. Subtantial
- D's conduct must be a de minimis contribution; more than minimal
- R v Kimsey (1996)
- applies to acts and omissions
3b. Novus Actus Interveniens
- absolve D of liability
- ONLY applies to acts
Doctor Cases
- Courts often say that medical treatment, even if it's negligent, wasn't sufficiently free and voluntary
-Exemption cases:
- R v Jordan (1956)
- R v Cheshire (1991)
Even when an act is free, voluntary and informed , the foreseeability test is applied; especially in the cases of the victim's act or third parties
Test: was a NAI reasonably foreseeable to the ordinary human?
If yes, then there was no NAI and D remains liable
If no, then there's an NAI and D isn't liable
- R v Roberts (1971)
- R v Wallace (2018)
Natural Events
- Test: was this event reasonably foreseeable?
- R v Gowans (2003)
If yes, then there was no NAI and D remains liable
If no, then there's an NAI and D isn't liable
Human agents intervening
- the intervention must be free, voluntary and informed
- R V Kennedy (No. 2) (2007)
- R v Burgess (2008)
Interventions Solely from V
The thin skull rule can be an NAI; established in R v Blaue (1975)
- the unexpected frailty of V is not valid defence to the seriousness of any injury caused to them
- R v Haywood (1908)
OMISSIONS
Duties to act
-
BASED ON THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP
- R v Gibbons and Proctor (1918); parent
- R v Adomako (1995); doctor
EXCEPTIONS
- R v Smith (1826); siblings
- R v Evans (2009); step-siblings
Exception to lack of duty with sibling relationship:
*R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)*
- controversial = Stone and Dobinson were disabled so it could be argued that they couldn't be judge on the terms of the 'ordinary' person
-
ENDANGEREMENT
- R v Miller (1983); this duty was created as a result of this case
- Fogan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
Contribution to a dangerous situation/ creation of a dangerous situation
- R v Evans (2009); extended the ruling in Miller (1983)
typically there is no liability for omissions EXCEPT for where the law ascribes D a positive duty to act
Breach of Duty
- the action required by D when under the duty to act is that which would be reasonable by the standards of an 'ordinary' person
-
ACTS
Voluntary Acts
Definition = an act is committed where free will is in operation
- Bratty v AG for NI (1963); "voluntary act is required in every criminal case"
Dilution of this requirement:
Situational/ state of affairs' offences
- Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)
Offences of possession
- Misuse of Drugs Act (1971)
Key facts:
- always start with the actus reus first
- conduct crime = act/omission + prescribed circumstances
- result crime = act/omission + prescribed circumstances + prescribed result
Distinguishing between Acts and Omissions
Acts interpreted as omissions; end of life cases
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993); HL held the doctor had a positive duty to act, but it was in Bland's best interest to die, and so it was an omission to act