STAGES

• What is the actus reus of a crime? (Hill v Baxter)

  The physical element - normally a voluntary act but can sometimes be provided by an omission.
• What is an omission?

  Is a failure to act when there is a duty to act.
• What is a duty arising from a Statute?

  Duty comes from a statue (act of parliament) e.g. S.14 Road Traffic Act 1988 - failure to wear a seatbelt.
• What is a duty arising from a special relationship? (Gibbins v Proctor)

  A relationship of love and affection e.g. parent child.
• What is a duty arising from an assumption of responsibility? (Stone + Dobinson)


  Where a person voluntarily assumes responsibility for another person.
• What is a duty arising from a creation of a dangerous situation? (Miller)

  Where the defendant creates a dangerous situation they can be under a duty to act and a failure to act can result in punishment.
• What is a duty arising from a contract of employment? (Atwood)

  Person employed in jobs which involves the safety of others and a failure to act can result in punishment.
• What is causation? (result crimes)

  With all result crimes (a crime which causes or results in specified consequences) the prosecution must prove a connection between the defendant’s conduct and the consequence, e.g. the death of the victim.
• Part 1 - Factual causation

  The 'but for' test (R v White) - This asks whether ‘but for’ the defendant's conduct would the consequence have occurred as and when it did.
• Part 2.1 - De minimis principle 


  The Defendant can only be guilty if his conduct was a ‘more than minimal’ cause of the consequence.

  R v Kimsey (1996)- ‘more than a slight or trifling link’
• Part 2.2 - Intervening acts (Acts of the victim)


  R v Roberts (1971) The Victim’s reaction was not ‘daft or unexpected’ it was within the range of responses you would expect in the circumstances. The Defendant was the legal cause of her injuries.

  R v Williams and Davis (1992)It was determined that his reaction was daft and unexpected and so the Defendants were not the legal cause. 

  If the victim makes their injuries worse or neglects them the D will remain the cause of the consequence.
• Part 2.2 - Intervening acts (Acts of a 3rd person)

  An act of a third party will only break the chain of causation if the act is sufficiently independent of the defendant’s conduct and is sufficiently serious. 

  Negligent medical treatment rarely breaks the chain of causation, it will only do so if the Doctor’s actions are so independent of the Defendant’s contribution and “so potent” in bringing about the consequence that they render the Defendant’s contribution insignificant (Cheshire).
• Part 2 .2 - Intervening acts (Act of God)


  Natural but unpredictable event.
• Part 3 - Thin skull rule (R v Blaue)


  This rule means that the Defendant must take the Victim as he finds them. Even if the Victim is more vulnerable to harm due to a pre-existing condition the Defendant will be responsible for the full extent of the harm. This includes the ‘whole man’ so it can include physical and psychological conditions and religious beliefs.
• Part 2 - Three parts of legal causation?


  De minimis principle

  Intervening acts - Acts of victim, Acts of 3rd party, Acts of God Thin skull rule