Criminal Law – 4ed (2024) Chapter 1 Actus Reus

• The chapter focuses on applying core legal principles and rules related to actus reus to ethical problems and situations.
• Case names, statutes, and regulatory authorities are used for illustrative purposes only.
• The two main learning outcomes focus on explaining the concept of actus reus, including factual and legal causation, and explaining how an omission can constitute the actus reus of an offense.

Introduction to Criminal Offences

• Establishing criminal liability typically requires three components:
  • Actus reus (guilty conduct)
  • Mens rea (guilty state of mind)
  • Absence of any valid defense.
• Actus reus is the starting point for considering all crimes, and analyzing evidence to determine if the suspect completed it is essential.
• The chapter covers the components of actus reus, criminal liability for omissions, and the concept of causation.

Burden and Standard of Proof

• The defendant's guilt is determined by magistrates or a jury who assess the evidence.
• Proof of the accused's criminal behavior with the required guilty state of mind is necessary to convict.
• The legal burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense, including disproving the defense in most cases.
• The evidential burden also falls on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence, such as police interviews, witness/expert evidence, and forensic evidence.
• The standard of proof for the prosecution is beyond a reasonable doubt.
• In some rare instances, the defendant has the legal burden of proving their defense.
• The standard of proof for the defendant is lower, based on the balance of probabilities.
• If the evidential burden falls on the defense, the defendant must show sufficient evidence to rely on a defense, which the prosecution must then disprove.

General Principles of Actus Reus

• The actus reus of every offense is different and can be found in statute or common law.
• The actus reus elements include all aspects not related to the defendant’s state of mind.
• Actus reus is commonly referred to as the 'guilty act', but may be satisfied in several ways.

Types of Crimes

• The actus reus may involve the defendant doing something, failing to act, or simply be caused by the existence of a situation.
• The following components may consist of the Actus reus:
  • An act or failure to act (conduct crimes)
  • Certain consequences flowing from the defendant's conduct (result crimes)
  • The existence of certain circumstances at the time of the defendant's conduct (circumstances/state of affairs crimes)

Conduct Crimes

• For most offences, the actus reus is defined in a way that it requires conduct on the part of the accused.
• Perjury is an example of a pure conduct crime.
• Voluntary conduct is essential for a crime; applying unlawful force is an example of voluntary conduct.
• If a motorist is attacked by bees while driving, a charge of careless driving would fail as actions could not be said to be voluntary.

Result Crimes

• Specific consequences must follow from the defendant's actions to satisfy the actus reus.
• Murder is an example where the result is the death of a human being.

State of Affairs Crimes

• Some offenses do not require conduct; the actus reus is the existence of a state of affairs or particular circumstances.
• S 4(2) of the Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988, makes it a crime to be in charge of a vehicle unfit to drive due to drink/drugs and is a state of affairs offense.
• These offences are justified because they are regarded as more important to prevent crime in individual circumstances.

Omissions

• Most offenses require the defendant to take positive steps, but some can be committed by doing nothing.
• One can be criminally liable for a failure or omission to act.

The General Rule

• There is no criminal liability for omissions.
• A stranger has no obligation to save a child drowning in a puddle.

Statutory Offences

• There are several statutory offenses with actus reus specifically defined as an omission.
• An example is failing to provide a specimen of breath to a police officer or failing to stop after a collision.

Common Law Offences

• A defendant is only criminally liable for an omission if the law recognizes that they had a duty to act.
• Over time, the situations that the law has said one has a positive duty to act in have been recognized

Duty Arising out of Contract

• Failure to comply with contractual obligations can lead to criminal liability, not just to other parties to the contract but also to anyone whose life is endangered by the failure to act.
• Pittwood was contractually obligated to protect the public and convicted of manslaughter.
• Carers and healthcare professionals are contractually bound and liable for homicide if they neglect patients.

Special Relationship

• Criminal liability for omission can occur where there is a special relationship between the defendant and the victim via family or because the defendant has assumed a duty towards the victim. - In R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918), the defendants were charged and convicted of murdering a seven-year-old girl who died of starvation.
  • The father was under duty as a parent
  • His partner was convicted due to her special relationship with the child, by living and accepting housekeeping money from the father.
• Existance to a close relationship may be a duty to act, and can extend further than parents and children.

Stone and Dobinson Case

• The two defendants took in Stone's Anorexic sister.
• The sister’s condition deteriorated so she became bed ridden, and eventually died poisoning from infected bed sores.
• The defendants were convicted of manslaughter from occasional but ineffectual attempts to help her.
• This case showed the importance for those in a caring role that is preformed badly enough, can result in results in criminal liability if injury or death happens.

Creation of a Dangerous Situation

• The duty will arise if a person does something that endangers the victim and they are aware of it and they are under a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm from occurring.
• In Gethan parks scenario:
  • Gethan didn't put his handbrake which endangered the 2 boys, and has created a new duty, he is required to pull the handbrake on.

Summary of Omissions

• The general rule is that there is no liability for omissions.
• Exceptions to this rule occur where the defendant is under a positive duty, such as a statutory or contractual duty, a special relationship with the victim, voluntary assumption of care, or creating a dangerous situation.

Causation

• For result crimes, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused's act or omission caused the prohibited consequence (proving causation).
• Causation is an element of the actus reus and not a separate entity.
• There are two types of causation: factual and legal causation; both must be present.
• The defendant is criminally liable only if they caused harm to the victim in fact and law.

Factual Causation

• Factual causation states that the defendant cannot be considered the cause if the event would've still occurred without the defendant's act or ommission.
• The question, "but for the defendant's conduct, would the consequence have occurred?" determines this.
• In R v White [1910], the defendant poisoned his mother's drink, intending to kill her, however the mother had died from heartfailure before the poison took effect.
  • Because the death was unlinked to the poison the defendant literally got away with murder - but was found guilty for an attempt.
• If the jury answer yes in "Would the result have occurred in the absence of the defendant's actions", the defendant is not liable.
• Everyone must day at some point nonetheless causation is only established when the defendant acounts the acceleration of their death.
• This test is of limited value as it cast an over-wide net.
• The But for causation net can be overly wide.

Legal Causation

• In addition to factual cause, the prosecution must say the accused was the legal cause and it shows that the defendant's actions caused the consequence.
• Legal causation will only be considered, should the prosecution can prove that the defendant was the factual cause of the result.
• Over time, the principles of Legal causation have been adapted to what the judges' interpretation is.

The Consequence

• In order for the court to rule someone caused a crime, some must be viewed blameworthy.
• R v Dalloway (1847) showed that the defentant had negligantly hit ran over a child. It was only if he held had holding the reins would have save the boy.
• The culpable act must be a more than minimal cause of the consequence
• For someone to viewed as trivil, for example hastening them towards their death then there is no prosecution.

Benge Case

• A defendand of a track layering was to the detriment in misreading the training schedule when the train came. The jury stated all that was necessary as there could be multiple factor to someone cause.
• D Must take their victim as they find them: Shows that the person will have an unusual physical mental condition.
• R v Blaue [1975] showd that although medicaine could have saved her she died because his violence as she reufsed as he was violence. Even though the case it might just bruised.

The chain of causation musnt broken

• Defendants have sometimes tries to states the link, which refers to novus actus interveniens.
• There some acts that will say if the chain of causation is broken, like the victim act or another preosn intervenes, or the event occurs etc..
• IF the victim acts as a initial omssion of accused, the legals will not be establshed. The question is whether it was free deleiberate, then it will rarely be practice.
• Two main factors are where the victim tries to escape, where they commit sucidide. In that case, the court with view it was foreseeable.

Robertson case

• If the attack because the un wanted advances, in a result the victim jumped out the car.
• This showed caused bodysharm even though it the victims conduct

Intervening Events

• Another way it can be broken where and other people intervene or where the defentant breaks it.
• As a consequence of all the actions, the police and defendant were founded innocent. Even thougth it the act of the time.
• This show how negligence happens if the hospital.
• The point is the there were to much poissing and treatment so we made the cause more worse.

Interveining Neglinence

• Chain of Causation has to make an impact on the victims negligence. With this ruling in in effect is it the injury is still operating and it will find differ to be cause due to the act.