Actus reus

• The actus reus is the physical element of the crime, what they did or did NOT do.
• Crimes can either be conduct, or consequence crimes
• A conduct crime is where the accused's conduct forms the offence, there is no required consequence.
• An example of a conduct crime is drink driving. Merely driving with excess alcohol in one's blood stream is a criminal offence. no consequence is needed, for example, causing an accident is not required.
• In consequence crimes, the consequence element must happen for the offence to be committed.
• An example of a criminal crime is the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Here, there must be an assault but there must also be a consequence of actual bodily harm. A consequence crime requires proof at the actus reus, the assault, that caused the prohibited consequence, the harm.
• The actus reus must be voluntary on the part of the defendant.
• If the defendant has no control over their actions, then they have not committed the actus reus of the offence
• What is the significance of the case of r v hill v baxter?

  It shows that if the defendant didn't have control over their actions, then they do not have the actus reus of the offence.
• what case shows that if the defendant didn't have control over their actions, then they do not have the actus reus of the offence?

  R v Hill v Baxter
• A state of affairs offence is where the defendant is convicted even though the act was not desired by the defendant but occurred through actions against their will.
• An example of a state of affairs offence case is the case of r v Larsonneur
• The following situations are where Omissions can give rise to a liability in criminal law:

  1. An act of parliament creates an offense involving an omission
  2. A contractual duty exists
  3. A duty exists because of a relationship between the accused and the victim
  4. A duty toward the victim has been voluntarily taken by the accused
  5. A duty to act arises as a result of the accused having an official position
  6. a duty to act arises as the defendant has set in motion a chain of events
• Many statutory offences are regulatory and concern matters such as the prevention of pollution or public safety, for example, failing to take a breath test as a driver or not following building standards. These offences often require only proof of an actus reus to establish guilt. These offences are known as strict liability.
• What is an example of a strict liability offence according to statute?

  Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988- it is an offence to fail to stop and give various details in connection with a road traffic accident involving personal injury or damage to property
• What is an example of a duty existing as a result of a relationship between the victim and the accused? What is the relationship in this case?

  r v Gibbins and Proctor. The accused are the parents of the victim, who is a child.
• What two cases give an example of a duty arising as the accused has voluntarily taken a duty over the victim?

  R v Evans

  R v Stone and Dobinson
• what case gives an example of a duty arising as the Accused has an official position?

  R v Dytham
• what case gives an example of a duty towards the victim arising because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events?

  r v Milller
• Where a consequence must be proved, the prosecution must show that:

  1. The defendant's conduct was a factual cause of the consequence- factual causation
  2. The defendant's conduct was in law, the cause of the consequence- legal causation
  3. There were no intervening acts that would've broken the chain of causation
• What is the factual causation test?

  It is a test that asks "But / for the defendant's conduct or omission, the consequence wouldn't have happened". It also asks if the consequence was reasonably foreseeable.
• What case gives an example of the but/for test succeeding?

  r v Paggett
• What case shows the but/for test failing?

  r v White
• What is the thin skull principle?

  The thin skull principle is a legal doctrine that holds a defendant liable for the full extent of a victim's injuries, even if the victim had a pre-existing condition that made them more susceptible to harm.
• what case is an example of the thin skull principle in action?

  R v Blaue
• what case shows how the victim can break the chain of causation by unreasonably refusing medical treatment?

  r v Blaue
• The link between a guilty act and the consequence is called the chain of caustion
• An act that breaks the chain of causation is called Novus Actus interveniens:

  1. Negligent, poor and & inappropriate treatment
  2. The victim is denying medical treatment for unreasonable reasons
  3. The victim acted unreasonably and unforeseeably~
• The legal causation test asks if the defendant made a significant contribution to the consequence; they needn't be the sole cause. The defendant's actions must be the operating and substantial cause of the consequence.
• What cases give examples of the defendant's action being the operating and substantial cause of a consequence?

  r v Smith and r v Cheshire
• what case shows how neglgient, poor and inappropriate treatment can break the chain of causation ?

  r v Jordan
• What case shows how if the victim acts unreasonably, and in unforeseeable ways, they can break the chain of causation?

  r v Roberts