Actus Reas

• Actus Reus (“AR”) means “guilty act”. It is the conduct element (doing part) of the crime which usually involves a positive, voluntary act. However, it can also be an omission or a state of affairs.
• What conduct is required is only known by looking at the definition of the particular crime. In the case of statutory crimes, these definitions are found in the words of the Act of Parliament. In the case of common law offences, they are found in the decisions of the courts.
• The AR element must be proved first, but it will only create criminal liability if accompanied by the relevant Mens Rea (“MR”). In fact, the actus reus is all the elements which make up a particular offence except those relating to the accused’s state of mind.
• As a general rule, if the Defendant is to be found guilty of a crime, his or her behaviour in committing the actus reus must have been voluntary. This is because if D did not will his act, we can hardly say he did it.
• Conduct crimes (doing)


  What matters is what D does, e.g. drink-driving (Road Traffic Act 1988). No consequence is required. The AR is the prohibited conduct itself - simply driving with too much alcohol in the blood. Another example is perjury (making a statement which you know is false while under oath). It doesn't matter whether this makes a difference to the trial or not.
• Consequence crimes (result)


  The AR must result in a consequence, e.g. Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (s.47 OAPA 1861). This requires an application or threat of force, but there must also be a consequence of "actual bodily harm", i.e. some injury to the victim. Without the consequence of ABH, the AR for s.47 is not complete.

  It is not enough that there is a consequence without an AR causing that consequence. E.g. Marchant v Muntz (2003) where although a death had happened, there was no act of dangerous driving, so no crime was committed.
• State of affairs crimes (circumstances)


  What matters is being there in the prohibited circumstances, e.g. being in possession of a controlled drug (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971). The defendant does not have to do anything with the drug. The fact he is in possession of it is enough for the AR of the offence.

  An unusual case example is Larsonneur (1933). In this case, D was deported against her will from Ireland to England. On her arrival, she was charged with the offence of being an "illegal alien". Her conviction was upheld despite the fact that she had not voluntarily come to England.