Actus Reus Theory (AQA A Level Law)

• The actus reus of a crime is satisfied by proof that the defendant caused the criminal result to occur' - What kind of crime is this? Name an example offence

  Result crime. Example : Murder
• The actus reus of a crime is satisfied by proof that the defendant undertook a particular type of behaviour (conduct) without proof of a particular criminal outcome as a result of that conduct' - What kind of crime is this? Name an example offence

  Conduct crime. Example: speeding
• What are the two general principles of Actus reus?

  1. The actus reus must be committed voluntarily.2. The actus reus must be a positive action.
• How is Hill v Baxter (1958) relevant to the voluntary principle?

  In this case, the judge provided examples of when someone would be considered as driving involuntarily - an unexpected blow to the head, an attack from a swarm of bees, epileptic fits, unconsciousness via disease. D's defence of being 'tired' did not qualify as involuntary.
• What type of offence is the primary exception to the voluntary principle? Provide a case example.


  State of Affairs Offences - defendant can commit an offence by being in a 'certain state of affairs' even if doing so involuntarily. Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983).
• What are the two general exceptions to the Positive Action principle?


  1 : An Act of Parliament can create a criminal offence that can be committed through a failure to act. 2 : It is possible to commit crimes via omission where the defendant is under a duty to act as recognised by the law.
• What case is relevant to omission via contractual duty?

  R v Pittwood (1902) : the D failed to shut crossing gate, which was a contractual duty of his. Manslaughter.
• What case is relevant to omission via relationship?

  Gibbons and Proctor (1918) : D and wife failed to feed his child, which is a duty via relationship. Murder.
• What case is relevant to omission via voluntary assumption of responsibility?


  Stone and Dobson (1977) : The defendants (a couple) both had physical and mental disabilities. They assumed care of Ted's sister who was vulnerable herself. She died whilst in there care from neglect. Misconduct.
• What case is relevant to omission via statutory obligation?

  R v Dytham (1979) : The defendant, a police officer, failed to intervene whilst the victim was beaten to death outside a nightclub. Misconduct in a public office.
• What case is relevant to omission via the failure to avert a danger of one's own creation?

  Miller (1983) : The defendant lit a cigarette in a house he occupied at the time, fell asleep and caused a fire. Upon awaking, he failed to put out the fire and instead fell asleep in another room. Arson.
• What two causes must the defendant be in order to be found guilty?

  The FACTUAL cause and the LEGAL cause.
• Define factual causation.

  As a matter of fact, the defendant was the cause of the prohibited result; the defendant's actions link directly to the actus reus.
• State the 'but for' test. What would a 'yes' answer indicate?


  'But for the defendant's actions, would the criminal consequence have taken place?'Yes -> Defendant NOT factual cause (criminal consequence would have happened anyway.
• What case is relevant to establishing factual causation? Briefly explain why.

  Paggett (1983) : On appeal, D argued that he was not guilty of the manslaughter of the V, as she was killed by police. When we apply the but for test, the answer is no. This is because if the defendant had not used her as a human shield, she would not have been shot.
• Define legal causation. Why do we have it?

  Defendant must be an 'operating and substantial' cause of result. There must be no 'novus actus interveniens' (a break in the chain of causation). Exists to prevent innocent persons from being criminally liable when they were only the factual cause and not morally blameworthy.
• True or False : In order to prove the D was an operating and substantial cause, they do not need to be the sole or even main cause of consequence, provided that their actions linked substantially to it.

  True
• In what case was the Judge's description of the defendant's actions only needing to be 'more than a slight or trifling link' in order to establish legal causation controversial? What was the outcome?

  R v Kimsey (1996). The conviction was upheld as the word 'substantial' can have subjective meaning, so the Judge's language was fair.
• Which of the 5 key novus actus interveniens rarely satisfy as a break in the chain of causation?


  Conditions of the Victim. ( Neglect of the Victim & Actions of the Victim are also unlikely to break the chain).
• In order for third party intervention to satisfy a break in the chain of causation, what general principle should apply?

  Actions of the third party must be sufficiently independent of the original D and unforeseeable. The third party must intend to exploit the situation created by the original D.
• Why was it ruled that the chain of causation was not broken by third party intervention in Paggett (1983)?

  Although V was technically killed by police, their response to D's firing was forseeable.
• What must negligent medical treatment be in order to be a break in the chain of causation? In what case did this occur?

  So overwhelmingly bad that it becomes the clear cause of the criminal result. In Jordan (1956), D died from an allergic reaction to a large dose antibiotics, even when he previously had a similar reaction already in front of doctors with a smaller dose. This medical treatment was deemed as 'palpably wrong'.
• What other two cases are relevant to the possible NAI of Medical Negligence. Was the NAI satisfied?

  Smith (1969): stabbing wound severity not correctly identified by nurses, however, the NAI was NOT satisfied.Cheshire (1991): V died from rare tracheotomy complications; however, the procedure was a consequence of gunshot wounds, and so NAI was not satisfied.
• What is the test for assessing whether actions of the victim break the chain of causation? It what case was this used and what was the outcome?

  'Reasonable (objective) foreseeability. 'If the victim acts in a reasonable way to the defendant's actions, the chain of causation will not be broken. Roberts (1971) : The v jumping out of the car was seen as foreseeable, and so the NAI was not satisfied.
• With what case is Neglect of the Victim as an NAI relevant?

  Holland (1841) : Despite the V not seeking medical help, the D was still liable. Neglect of the Victim rarely breaks the chain of causation.
• With what possible NAI is the Thin Skull Rule applicable? What is it? How was it used in Blaue (1975)?


  Conditions the Victim. The defendant 'must take his victim as he finds him'.In Blaue (1975), it was confirmed that the thin skull rule extended to religious belief (in this case Jehovna's witness).
• If a NAI does not clearly fit into one of the categories, what principle must be applied as to whether it satisfies a break in the chain of causation?

  Is the harm suffered by the new intervening act so significant and unforeseeable that is has become the operating cause of criminal consequence?
• Briefly outline the importance of the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993).

  The withdrawal of life support in order to accelerate death was characterised as lawful and an omission rather than murder. It was seen as in the patient's best interests.