Actus Reus (Malaysian law)

Introduction

Actus Reus:

  1. The conduct that is prohibited and defined either at common law or by statute which together with mens rea = crime
  2. Although actus reus usually is a result of human conduct, there are circumstances where an ommission to act = crime
  3. Conduct can be either a single act or a series of acts and circumstances

Causation

  1. 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
  2. Conduct doesn't need to be a direct cause of the crime, bc a person may cause an event through the agency of others
  3. 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

Elements of a Crime

  1. A person is not convicted of a crime unless by voluntary conduct, brought those elements which by statute will constitute a crime
  2. 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".

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

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

  1. 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
  1. Medical Intervention

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
  1. 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):

  • "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"

Omissions

An ommision is illegal when:

  • The omission is an offence;
  • The omission is prohibited by law;
  • The omission will attract civil liability

Express offences:

  • e.g. section 187 of the Penal Code
    • "Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance"

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:
  1. a state of automatism as he suffered an attack of psychomotor epilepsy,
  2. he was so confused an deficient in reason that he was incapable of forming the necessary intent
  3. 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)

Nature and quality

R v Codere (1916)

R v Sullivan

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)

Limits of Automatism

  1. Self-induced?

Bailey (1983):

  • Liable due to recklessness
  1. Intoxication - learn later in in sem

Abdul Razed bin Dalek v PP (2010):

  • Slit wife's throat, pleaded non-insane automatism
  • Was he unconcious? no = liable

Clause 33 of the Draft (not law but a proposal for reform) in Criminal Code Bill 1989):

  1. 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