Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Actus Reus (English law) - Coggle Diagram
Actus Reus (English law)
Introduction
-
Elements of a Crime
ACTUS REUS + MENS REA = CRIME:
- All elements of the offence excluding D's "mental element"
- i.e. the definition of offences minus the mens rea requirements of the offence
- Voluntary, positive unlawful act
- Accused commits positive action - commissions
- Accused actions "free-willed"
Hill v Baxter:
- Facts: D was behind the wheel when his car collided with another. At trial on charge of dangerous driving, he claimed he was sick via unknown illness and was unconscious
- Held: Credible evidence must support claim of sudden illness/concussion usually going beyond D's mere assertion
- Lord Goddard J dissenting: the burden of proof thereafter is on persecution to show that act is a voluntary one
External factors:
- Autonomism
- Reflex actions
- Physical force
Autonomism - R v Quick:
- Facts: D (nurse) assaulted a patient who is diabetic. He drank whiskey and rum claiming that he couldn't remember assault and pleated autonomism.
- Held: D suffered from autonomism, a mental abnormality caused by an external factor.
- Lawton LJ: "a self-induced incapacity will not excuse... nor will one that could've been reasonably foreseen as a result of either doing/ommitting to do something" = not guilty
-
Legal Causation
- Operating and Substantial Cause:
- Must be the operating and substantial cause of the victim's harm
- Must have a chain of causation
R v Smith (1959):
- Facts: D (soldier) got into a fight at an army barracks and stabbed C (another soldier). C was taken to medics but was dropped twice en route. Once there treatment given was described to be very wrong and failed to diagnose that his lung is punctured. C died and D was convicted of murder and appealed saying that if C received correct medical treatment he won't die
- Held: Stab wound is an operating cause of death, conviction upheld, D still guilty
R v Cheshire:
- Facts: D shot C in the stomach and thigh. C was taken to hospital where he was operated on and developed breathing difficulties. Hospital gave him a treatment and several weeks later he was healing. But later he still had breathing difficulty and died from complications. D was convicted of murder and appealed.
- Held: D's conviction upheld despite the fact that wounds aren't the operative cause of death. Intervening medical treatment is not D's responsibility and not the cause of death. Since D shot C it shouldn't be ignored
R v Jordan (1956):
- Facts: D stabbed C and was taken to hospital, given antibiotics after showing allergic reactions to them. C also given excessive amounts of intravenous liquids. C died of pneumonia 8 days after admission to hospital. At time of death the wounds were starting to heal.
- Held: C died of medical treatment and not the stab wound. D not liable for death.
Fright and flight
- When the victim's actions are a natural result of D's actions, reasonable foreseeability of D doesn't matter if D can foresee the result
- Only when victim's actions are stupid/unexpected no reasonable man could've expected it will only break the chain of causation.
Roberts (1971):
- Facts: C accepted a lift from D at a party. D drove in a different direction and started making sexual advances (creep mf). She jumped out of a moving car to escape him and suffered concussion + cuts and bruises.
- Held: No need to establish intention/recklessness as to level of force under S47. Its enough to establish that D has intention / was reckless as to assault or battery
R v Hayward (1908):
- Facts: D chased his wife out of the house shouting threats at her. She collapsed and died. He didn't physically touched her. She was suffering from a rare thyroid condition that could lead to death where physical exertion comes with fright + panic. Both D and his wife were unaware she had this condition.
- Held: D = liable for constructive manslaughter as his unlawful act (assault) caused death. Eggshell skull rule applied. D liable despite an ordinary person of reasonable fortitude wouldn't have died in such circumstances.
Eggshell skull rule:
- Take the victim as it is, cannot assume the victim is an abnormal person
Mackie (1973):
- Facts: D threatened his 3-year old stepson with severe thrashing for some minor misbehaviour. C tried to run away but fell downstairs, dislocated neck and died. D charged with manslaughter.
- Held: Conviction upheld. Judge put 4 questions to jury:
- Was the boy in fear of D?
- Did the fear caused him to try to escape?
- Was that fear well founded
- Was it caused by D's unlawful conduct?
- allowing for the fact that D was in loco parentes and can lawfully administer reasonable punishment? They are valid questions and jury evidently answered each of them affirmatively = guilty
Neglect and Maltreatment
R v Holland (1841):
- Facts: D was involved in a fight where he inflicted a deep cut on C's finger. C failed to take care of the wound thus became infected. Eventually gangrene set in and C was advised to have arm amputated where he refused and died.
- Held: D = liable for death despite C's actions in contributing to his death.
R v Blaue (1975):
- Facts: D stabbed C (18 yrs old) 4 times when she refused sex with him (MEN.) C is a practising Jehovah's witness and refused to have blood transfusion that could save her life. D convicted of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility and appealed saying that C's refusal of accepting blood transfusion is novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation. At first Holland not considered good law
- Held: D's conviction upheld. Wound still operative cause of death. So no novus actus interveniens and Holland still good law.
R v Dear (1996):
- Facts: D's daughter accused man of sexually abusing her. D went after man and repeatedly slashed him. C received medical treatment but later re-opened wounds that was thought to be suicide and died 2 days later after initial attack. D argued the man's actions in opening the wounds amounted to novus actus interveniens.
- Held: D's conviction upheld. Wound still operating and substantial cause of death = guilty.
Drug Administration
R v Kennedy (2007):
- Facts: C prepared a solution of heroin filled a syringe and handed it to the victim at a hostel. Victim injected himself and died. C is convicted of supplying a class A drug and constructive manslaughter. 2 appeals to the CA were unsuccessful. On 2nd appeal CA certified the following question of law:
- "When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of class A controlled drug that is freely + self administered by the person to whom its supplied, and the administration of the drug then caused his death"
- Held: Appeal allowed and C's conviction for manslaughter quashed.
Acts of 3rd Party
Michael (1840):
- Case clarifies that a 3rd party won't break the chain of causation when their actions are reasonable foreseeable and innocent
Haystead v DPP (2000):
- Facts: Man punched a women twice in the face while she's holding a child in her arms. As a direct result of the 2 punches, child fell from women's arms and hit head on floor. Man was convicted of an offence of assault by beating the child. Man was convicted of battery and assault of child.
- Held: direct application of force can be applied through a medium that's controlled through actions of a person, don't need direct infliction of physical contact with victim's body. Although most batteries is directly inflicted on C's body, for charges of battery + assault under S39 of CJA 1988.
- Court stipulated that difference between D's actions causing the baby to fall from mother's hands and punching of baby directly is the charge of reckless and not intentional battery.
Factual Causation
- R v White established the "but for" test
- i.e. would the result have occurred but for the actions of D? If the answer is yes, D not liable
R v White (1910):
- Facts: D put poison in his mother's milk with the intention of killing her. Mother took a few sips and went to sleep and never woke up. Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison.
- Held: D not liable for her murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death. He is liable for attempt.
R v Pagett (1983):
- Facts: C separated from wife and formed relationship with a minor and made her pregnant. She finished the relationship when she became 6 months pregnant and when he became violent. He didn't take it well and shot the father, took mom at gunpoint demanding where is the minor. When police was involved he used the minor as a shield and the police shot the minor and died. C is then convicted of possession of firearm with intent to endanger life, kidnapping, attempted murder of father and 2 police officers + manslaughter of minor. C appealed against manslaughter conviction on issue of causation.
- Held: Conviction upheld. Firing of police officers caused them to fire back. Firing back the police officers are acting in self-defence. Using the girl as a shield caused her death.
- Result must be caused by a culpable act. Culpable act was not holding the reins, hence not the cause of death.
R v Dalloway (1847):
- Facts: D is driving a horse and cart down a road without holding on to the reins. Child ran in front of cart and is killed. D is not liable as he wouldn't have stopped the cart in time even if he was holding the reins.
- Held: D's conviction upheld. D's action need not be the only cause. Liability can arise provided D's act is more than a minimal cause.