Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Actus Reus (Malaysian law) - Coggle Diagram
Actus Reus (Malaysian law)
Introduction
Actus Reus:
The conduct that is prohibited and defined either at common law or by statute which together with mens rea = crime
Although actus reus usually is a result of human conduct, there are circumstances where an ommission to act = crime
Conduct can be either a single act or a series of acts and circumstances
Elements of a Crime
A person is not convicted of a crime unless by voluntary conduct, brought those elements which by statute will constitute a crime
A person won't incur criminal liability unless he intends to, or recklessly brought about those elements that constitutes a crime
AKA "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea".
Causation
To establish criminal liability, not only do you need to accused to be in a
sound state of mind
, but also must prove that the crime is
caused by some conduct on his part
Conduct
doesn't need to be a direct cause
of the crime, bc a person may cause an event
through the agency of others
Its sufficient if its a
significant cause
, that is caused by something
very serious
, or merely part of the history of events that led to the crime
Legal Causation
Shaiful Edam bin Adam v PP (1990):
"... neck wounds is still the operating cause and a substantial cause, and death can properly be said to have resulted from them, albeit that some other cause of death (drowning was also operating.
"The neck wounds were not merely the setting in which another cause operated so that it could be said that death didn't result from them..."
Novus Actus Interveniens
Acts/omissions of the victim
Nga Moe v The King AIR (1941):
Facts: D inflicted minor head injuries to C. C healed after a week in hospital but later had fever. C was told to stay in hospital but C did not and died from brain abscess.
Held: A reasonable man couldn't foresee, privacy will be protected
Thin Skull Rule - Section 299 Penal Code:
Explanation 1: A person who causes bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disorder, disease/bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death
Medical Intervention
Ng Keng Yong v PP (2004):
"The question was whether ANL's (ship) contributory negligence had such causative potency that D's initial negligence could not have been said to have contributed significantly to the collision"
Acts of 3rd Parties
PP v Suryanarayana Murty (1912):
Referred to R v Michael (1840)
Ng Keng Yong v PP (2004):
"The question was whether ANL's (ship) contributory negligence had such causative potency that D's initial negligence could not have been said to have contributed significantly to the collision"
Ng Keng Yong v PP (2004):
Applied the "substance cause
Murugan a/l Arumugam v Pendakwa Raya (2012)
Trauma to the spine (blunt force). Domestic abuse to maid. Beat her and burned her.
Applied the "substance cause test and referred to Ng Keng Yong
Omissions
An ommision is illegal when:
The omission is an
offence
;
The omission is
prohibited by law
;
The omission will attract
civil liability
Prohibited by law:
Includes express offences
Includes situation where the law prohibits the failure to do something (no need to be an express offence)
Example - s68 Singapore Women's Charter 2009:
"... it shall be the duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his or her children..."
Part of an act and omission:
s39: a person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or at time of employing those means, he knew/had reason to believe to be likely to cause it
Section 87 Penal Code:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong/contrary to law
Voluntary or willed:
The act, omission and/or event is usually required to be voluntary or willed
Per Lord Denning in Bratty v AG of Northern Ireland: "No act is punishable if its done involuntarily"
Bratty v AG of Northern Ireland (1969):
Facts: C is convicted of murder in spite of 3 defences:
a state of automatism as he suffered an attack of psychomotor epilepsy,
he was so confused an deficient in reason that he was incapable of forming the necessary intent
he was guilty but insane as he's suffering from a disease of the mind
Involuntary Acts:
Involuntary acts caused by external physical force
Involuntary acts not caused by external physical elements, aka "autonmatism"
Hill v Baxter (1958):
Facts: Dangerous driving and careless driving; driving in state of automatism - claimed he became unconscious as a result of being overcome by sudden illness
Automatism:
per Lord Denning in Bratty: "an act that is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as spasm, a reflex action, or a convulsion; or
an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he's doing, e.g ac act done whilst suffering from concussion/sleepwalking
Insane automatism:
Rules in the case of M' Naugthen:
Disease of the mind
Burgess (1991):
Sleepwalker (internal: insane)
Hennessy (1989):
Hyperglycemia (internal: insane)
R v Sullivan
Nature and quality
R v Codere (1916)
Non-Insane automatism:
Lord Denning in Bratty (1963)
R v T (1990):
Post-traumatic stress (PTSD) due to rape (external: non-insane)
Quick (1973):
Hypoglycemia - too much insulin (external: non-insane)
Abdul Razed bin Dalek v PP (2010):
Slit wife's throat, pleaded non-insane automatism
Was he unconcious? no = liable
Express offences:
e.g. section 187 of the Penal Code
"Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance"
Limits of Automatism
Self-induced?
Bailey (1983):
Liable due to recklessness
Intoxication - learn later in in sem
Clause 33 of the Draft (not law but a proposal for reform) in Criminal Code Bill 1989):
A person is not guilty of an offence if -
(a) he acts in a state of automatism, an act is-
(i) a reflex, spasm/convulsion; or
(ii) occurs if he's in a condition (sleep unconscious etc) depriving him of effective control of the act; and
(b) act/condition is the result of neither of anything done/omitted with the fault required for the offence not of voluntary intoxication