Criminal Law- Actus Reus

Conduct Crime

A crime which only requires proof that the defendant DID an act- no need to demonstrate a particular result, e.g. possession of drugs.

Result Crime

A crime which requires proof not only that the defendant performed a particular act, but that the act produced certain results. E.g. murder.

R v Cheshire 1991

A good example of how the courts treat the cases where it is alleged that medical treatment has broken the chain of causation. D shot the victim Jeffrey in the leg and the stomach. Jeffrey was taken to hospital and placed in intensive care, where he was given a tracheotomy. Two months after the shooting the victim died because his windpipe had narrowed and D was convicted of murder. He appealed but the appeal was dismissed.

Substantial test

A test for legal causation whereby the defendant's act must be a substantial cause of the result.

Novus Actus Interveniens

An act which breaks the chain of causation of a crime, whereby the defendant is committing an act which is free, voluntary and informed.

R v Kennedy 2007

An example of Novus Actus Interveniens. Defendant prepared a syringe of heroin for the victim. The victim injected the drug and died shortly after. D was convicted with supplying a class A drug, and for manslaughter. The court of appeal's issue was whether D should also be held responsible for the administration of the drug. Conviction for manslaughter was quashed.

R v Larsonneur 1993

An example of a situational offence- here a defendant is guilty for being in a particular situation or state of affairs. The defendant was convicted of the offence of being found in the UK illegally, contrary to the Aliens Order 1920. However she was only in the UK because she had been forcibly returned there by Irish police. Whether it was correct to punish her when she had performed no voluntary act to put herself in the criminal situation is hotly debated.

Road Traffic Act 1988

An example of an act of omission under 'statutory duty', where the driver would fail to provide a sample of breath to a police officer would be guilty under this act.

R v Jordan 1956

An example of an exceptional case where bad medical care DID break the chain of causation. Here the defendant stabbed the victim, who almost recovered in hospital, until she was given a drug by the doctor to which she was allergic. The drug killed the victim. D was NOT found guilty of murder. It has to be 'palpably wrong' but not just a small wrong.

Tuck v Robson 1970

An example of an omission of ownership or control of property. If someone owns a piece of property and another person in his or her presence commits a crime using that property then the owner is under a duty to seek to prevent the crime in so far as is reasonable.

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969

An example of omission by a continuing act. The defendant ran over a police officers foot by accident, but when the policeman asked him to stop, he continued to run over his foot.

R v Miller 1983

An example of omission by a creation of danger. D falls asleep drunk with a lighted cigarette, accidentally sets fire to the mattress of the bed in the house in which he is staying, and all he did was move out of the room into the next room.

R v Stone; R v Dobinson 1977

An example of omission of 'assumed duty'. Anorexic sister comes to stay with stupid brother and flatmate. They do nothing to help her and she starves herself to death. The defendants were convicted of manslaughter due to their omission of their assumed duty of care.

Pittwood 1902

An example of omission of a contractual duty. A man who works at a railway crossing forgets to close the gate and someone dies.

R v Hayward 1908

An example of the 'thin skull rule'. The defendent scared his wife and she ran out of the house, collapsed and died because she had an unknown medical condition. It was ruled that the husband caused his wife's death. It is limited to cases where the victim does nothing to make their situation worse.

Ahmad 1986

Certain crimes CANNOT be committed by omission (statutory crimes). Defendant is charged with an offence under the protection from eviction act 1977 which required proof of the defendant 'doing acts calculated to interfere with the victim's peace and comfort'. The defendant, a landlord, failed to carry out alterations on the victim's house and this left the premises uninhabitable. However the failure to carry out the alterations was not an 'act' and so the landlord was not guilty of an offence.

Actus Reus

Describes what the defendant must be proved to have done. The conduct element of the offence.

Doctrine of Innocent Agency

If someone causes an insane, mentally incapacitive person or a child to cause harm to other then they are held responsible for the other persons actions.

Lightning bolt

Natural events do not normally break the chain of causation unless it is unforeseeable.

Speck 1977

Proof that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between an act and an omission. A child innocently placed her hands on a mans genital area and he did nothing to remove it.

R v Evans (Gemma) 2009

The appellant gave her half-sister, C, some heroin who self-injected and then developed and complained of symptoms which the appellant recognised as being consistent with a heroin overdose. The appellant and her mother believed that they were responsible for her care but they decided not to seek medical assistance because they feared that they, and possibly C, would get into trouble. Instead they put C to bed, hoping that she would recover spontaneously. They remained at the house, checking on C at intervals and then sleeping in the same room as her. The following morning the appellant was woken by her mother who told her that C was dead. The cause of death was heroin poisoning. The appellant was charged with manslaughter. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that Gemma owed her sister a duty of care which she did not fulfill- which was to seek medical help.

R v Williams

The case where if it is "so daft" that it is unforeseeable, then the chain of causation is broken.

R v Roberts 1971

The defendant gave a girl a lift home in her car, threatened to touch her (but actually didn't) and so she jumped out and gave herself injuries. D was convicted of ABH and appealed. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that Roberts could have reasonably foreseen the outcome.

R v Blaue 1975

The defendant stabbed a woman, and when taken to the hospital she refused to have a blood transfusion because she was a jehovah's witness. She died the next day and he was convicted of manslaughter. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that one must "take their victim as they find them."

'Thin Skull Rule'

The defendants must take their victims as they find them- it is not a defence to say that the injuries or death were caused by the physical condition of the victim. (Colvin)

McKecnie

Thin skull rule: V dies of ulcer, like Blaue the D has to take the person "as a whole".

Vicarious liability

When an employer, under certain circumstances may be criminally responsible for the acts of an employee.