actus reus

• conduct crimes- not necessary for any consequence to be proved such as theft
• consequence crimes- must result in a consequence, such as s47. There must be an application or threat of unlawful force but also be ABH.
• 'state of affairs' crimes:

  Such as having an offensive weapon in a public place, defendant doesnt have to do anything wrong nor does it have to be visible it is enough that they have this in public.
• voluntary nature of actus reus:

  Must be voluntary, where they haven't been in control of their actions this isn't sufficient for the actus reus - Hill V Baxter.
• Involuntariness

  Can be convicted if they didn't act voluntarily in state of affairs crimes but not one that the defendant entered into voluntarily- R V Larsonneur.
• Omissions in actus reus:

  normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty.

  Other countries have a 'good Samaritan law' which makes people responsible for helping others in emergency situations however this gives rise to issues such as does everyone have to help if there are multiple witnesses and who decides whether there is an emergency
• Exceptions to the rule that an omission cannot result in guilty verdict;

  • a statutory duty
  • a contractual duty
  • duty because of relationship- R V Gibbons and Proctor
  • duty undertaken voluntarily- R V Stone and Dobinson
  • duty through official position
  • duty arises from a chain of events- R V Miller
• Duty of doctors: Airedale NHS V Bland

  where doctors decide to stop treatment and if it is the best interests of the patient then it is not an omission and cannot form the actus reus.
• several issues with the law on omissions:

  • whether there should be wider liability for omissions
  • deciding when a duty should be imposed
  • omissions in medical treatment
• Causation: Factual cause

  R V Pagett the But For test
• Causation: legal cause

  R V Kimsey- the substantive and operative cause
• Causation: thin skull rule

  R V Blaue

  defendant must take the victim as they find them
• Intervening acts:

  Must be a direct link from conduct to consequence, the chain of causation. Can be broken by;

  • act of 3rd party
  • victims own act
  • natural but unpredictable event
• Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the defendants acts and 'in itself so potent in causing death' that the defendants acts are insignificant.

  • R V Smith
• R V Malcharek- life support machines being switched off when a victim is brain dead doesnt break the chain of causation.
• Victims own act: R V Roberts

  if the defendant causes the victim to react in a reasonable foreseeable way then any injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant.
• however, if the victims reaction was unreasonable this may break the chain of causation- R V Williams and Davis