elements to a crime: Actus reus

Created by

Anosh Eric

Cards (26)

in a criminal case, who is the burden of proof on?
The prosecution, they must prove the Defendant is guilty beyond any resonable doubt
what is a conduct crime?
A crime committed without there having to be a consequence
what is an ecample of a conduct crime?
Drink driving
What is a consequence crime?
A crime when the consequence aspect of the crime happens
What is an example of a consequence crime?
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) - Section 47 of the offences against the person act 1861
what is the meaning of Actus reus?
The guilty act of a crime
What are the three things to be proven for someone to have the actus reus of a crime?
The actus reus must be done voluntarily
The actus reus is an act or an omission
The actus reus must cause the result
What does it mean that the actus reus must be voluntary?
The defendant must be in control of their actions
what is a state of affiars case?
Where the D is convicted even though the act wasnt desired by the D but happened via actions against their will
What is an example of a state of affairs case?
R v Larsonneur
what is the significance of the case of r v pittwood?
It shows a contractual duty
What is the significance of the case of r v Gibbons and Proctor?
It shows where there is a parental, familial, or some sort of equivalent relationship between the defendant, the Defendant has a responsibility over the victim
what is the case of r v stone and dobinson?
It shows a voluntary assumption of responsibility of the D over the victim
What is the significance of the case of r v miller 1983?
It shows that the defendant has a responsibility to act if they have crerated a dangerous situation
What is an example of a statute, and what does it say?
Section 170 of the road traffic act 1988- this legislation makes it an offence to fail to stop and give specific details when connected to a road traffic accident that involves personal or property damage.
what is causation?
The Defendant's conduct must've caused the consequence needed for the actus reus
What are the three things that must be proven for causation?
The D's conduct was a cause in fact
The D's conduct was a cause in Law
the chain of causation wasnt broken by any intervening acts.
What is the test for factual causation?
The 'but / for' test. the consequence must also be reasonably forseeable, it doesnt need to be the sole cause.
What is the significance of the case of r v pagett?
It is an example of the but/for test being used
what is the significance of the case of r v white?
It shows where the D's actions dont necessarily cause the outcome, however may lead to the conviction of another offence
what is the significance of the case of r v cheshire?
It shows how the Defendant doesnt need to be the sole cause of the consequence, they must make a significant contribution to the consequence
what are the three intervening acts?
Negligent, poor and/or innapropriate treatment.
If the V unreasonably denies medical treatment
If the V actus unreasonably and unforseeably
what is the significance of the case of r v jordan?
It is an example of negligent, poor and/or innapropriate treatment breaking the chain of causation
What is the signifcance of the case of r v blaue?
It is an example of a victim breaking the chain of causation reasonably as they denied medical treatment under the guise of religion which isnt unreasonable.
What is the significance of the case of r v roberts?
It is an example of where the victim broke the chain of causation as they acted unreasonably and unforseeably.
What is the thin skull principle?
It is a principle that states if the victim has a pre-existing condition, which makes their injuries more severe than usual, then the defendant is still liable for these exacerbated injuries if the original injury was reasonably foreseeable. This principle mandates that the defendant must take the victim as they are found, regardless of their underlying vulnerabilities.