actus reus

• actus reus

  the 'guilty act' the physical element of the crime can be an act, omission, or state of affairs
• Hill v Baxter

  act must be voluntary
• Larsonneur

  an offence can be committed because of a state of affairs, even if d didn't act voluntarily
• omissions as actus reus

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

  6 exceptions in which a duty can exist
• Statutory duty

  a statute specifies the duty

  e.g. failing to report a road traffic incident
• Pittwood

  can be a contractual duty to act
• Gibbins and Proctor

  can be a duty because of a relationship
• stone and dobinson

  duty can be taken on voluntarily
• Dytham

  duty can be through an official position
• Miller

  can owe duty from starting a chain of events
• causation

  the guilty act must be the cause of the consequence to find d guilty
• prosecution must show that

  d's conduct was the factual cause

  d's conduct was the legal cause

  there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
• Pagett

  factual causation

  consequence would not have happened 'but for' d's actions
• Kimsey

  legal causation

  d's conduct must be more than the minimal cause but it does not need to be the substantial cause
• Thin skull rule

  d must take the victim as they find them

  if victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state, this can make the injury worse

  d is liable for the more serious injury
• blaue

  you must take your victim as you find them
• chain of causation

  must be a direct link from d's conduct to the consequence

  d's actions must have been a 'significant contribution' or a 'substantive and operative cause'

  if the chain breaks, this is known as an intervening act
• R v Smith

  d liable if injuries are still an operating and substantial cause
• R v Cheshire

  medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation if so 'independent' of d's act
• R v Jordan

  new intervening act will break the chain of causation if its palpably wrong
• r v malcharek

  switching off life support doesn't break the chain of causation
• victims own act

  if d causes v to act in a foreseeable way, any injury will be caused by d

  if victims act is unreasonable this can break the chain
• r v roberts

  chain won't break if the victim reacted reasonably
• r v williams

  chain can break if victim reacts unreasonably