Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Actus reus - Coggle Diagram
Actus reus
Actus reus is the physical element of a crime. It can be
-an act
-a failure to act (omission)
-a state of affairs
Hill v Baxter (1958) - D ignored a road sign that said to stop, carried on, and crashed his van. He claimed to remember nothing for sometime before the crash and was an automaton (robot). He was convicted as there wasn't real evidence but court gave examples where a drive of a vehicle couldn't be said to be doing the act of driving voluntarily including if a driver lost control as he was stung by a swarm of bees, struck on the head by a rock or had a heart attack.
STATE OF AFFAIRS CASES - rare instances where the defendant is convicted even though the act wasn't voluntary.
R v Larsonneur (1933) - D (French woman) had been ordered to leave UK - she decided to go to Ireland but Irish police deported her and took her back to UK. She didn't wish to go back + wasn't doing it voluntarily. When she arrived back in UK, she was arrested + charged as an illegal immigrant, and was convicted even though it wasn't a voluntary act.
OMISSIONS - normally actus reus has to be a positive act and omission can't make a person guilty and this was explained by Stephen J 19th century judge, but this was clarified by Lord Diplock in R v Miller (1983) + there are a number of situations where you can have the actus reus of a crime through omission. These are...
Act of Parliament creates an offence involving an omission - Act can create liability for an omission. Most otf these are regulatory and concern matters such as prevention of pollution + public safety (failing to take a breath test as a driver). Often only require proof of an actus reus to establish guilt - strict liability offences.
Contractual duty to act exists - modern example = lifeguard leaving their post unattended and a swimmer being injured.
R v Pittwood (1902) - D employed as a railway crossing keeper = responsible for opening and closing gates between a road and railway line. He left gates open whilst he went to have lunch + during his absence, a train collided with a horse and cart, killing horse + driver. D found guilty of manslaughter as he had failed in his contractual duty.
-
A duty towards the victim has been taken on voluntarily by the accused - A duty which has been taken on voluntarily can result in actus reus if the duty isn't carried out.
R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) - Stone's elderly sister came to live with the D's. She became ill + unable to care for herself. She died and the D's convicted of manslaughter. Deceased was Stone's sister = he owed a duty of care to her. Dobinson undertaken some care of elderly woman so also owed her a duty of care. Duty = help her themselves or summon help. Their failure to do so meant they breached their duty.
-
-
Doctors' Duties - If discontinuing medical treatment is in the best interest of a patient, this isn't an omission which can form actus reus. Was decided in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) - NHS Trust was given permission to stop artificially feeding a man who had been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for over 3 years.
CAUSATION
Where a consequence has to be proved, the prosecution has to show that:
-the defendant's conduct was the factual cause of that consequence
-the defendant's conduct was in law the cause of the consequence
-there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
Factual Cause - D can only be guilty if the consequences wouldn't have happened 'but for' the D's conduct - R v Pagett (1983). Opposite situation in R v White (1910)
R v Pagett (1983) - D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed police. Police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. Pagett convicted of manslaughter - she wouldn't have died 'but for' him using her as a shield.
R v White (1910) - D put cyanide in his mother's drink to kill her but she died of a heart attack before she could drink it. D therefore not factual cause of her death. He wasn't guilty of murder but guilty of attempted murder.
Legal causation - Thin-skull rule - Under this rule, a D must take their victim as they find them. This means that if the victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious, the D is liable for the more serious injury.
R v Blaue (1975) - Young woman stabbed by the D. She needed a blood transfusion to save her life but refused to have one as she was a Jehovah's Witness. She died + D convicted of her murder. Despite fact her religious belief made the wound fatal D was still guilty as he had to take the victim as he found her.
The Chain of Causation - Once it's established there's factual causation, the prosecution must prove there's legal causation so there's little chance of innocent people being convicted.
Link between act + consequence = chain of causation. It must remain unbroken if there's to be criminal liability. Chain of causation can be broken by:
-act of a third party
-the victim's own act
-a natural but unpredictable event
In order to break the chain, the intervening act must be sufficiently independent of D's conduct and sufficiently serious.
Act of a third party - medical treatment - Number of cases where question arose as to whether poor medical treatment was operating or substantial cause of injuries. Medical treatment unlikely to break chain unless it's so independent of D's acts that the D's acts are insignificant. However, switching off life-support when victim is braindead doesn't break chain.
R v Smith (1959) - 2 soldiers had a fight and 1 was stabbed in lung by the other. Victim was carried to a medical centre by other soldiers but was dropped on the way. At medical centre, staff gave CPR which made injury worse and he died. Had proper treatment been given, his recovery chance was 75%. Despite this, original attacker was still guilty of murder as the stab wound was overwhelming cause of death.
R v Cheshire (1991) - D shot victim in thigh and stomach. Victim had problems breathing + given a tracheotomy. Victim died from rare complications of tracheotomy which wasn't spotted by doctors. By the time he died, original wounds were no longer life-threatening. D still held liable for murder.
R v Jordan (1956) - Victim stabbed in stomach. Was treated in hospital and wounds healing well. Was given an antibiotic but had allergic reaction to it. One doctor stopped use of it but next day, another doctor ordered a large dose of it be given. Victim died from allergic reaction to the drug. Actions of doctor held to be an intervening act which cause death. D wasn't guilty of murder.
Victim's own act - If D causes victim to react in a foreseeable way, then any injury to victim will have been caused by D as in R v Roberts. But, if victim's reaction is unreasonable, then this may break chain of causation as in R v Williams.
R v Roberts (1971) - Girl jumped from car to escape sexual advances. Car travelling between 20 + 40mph and girl was injured. D held liable for her injuries.
R v Williams (1992) - Hitch-hiker jumped from Williams' car and died from head injuries caused when he hit the road. Car travelling at 30mph. Prosecution alleged there had been an attempt to steal victim's wallet and that was the reason for jumping. Court stated victim's act had to be foreseeable and also had to be in proportion to the threat. Here it wasn't in proportion to threat and injury to victim wasn't caused by D.
A natural but unpredictable event - This would be where the injury or loss was caused by something such as an earthquake or flood