Actus Reus Notes

• AR = the conduct element. Prescribes what needs to be done, in what circumstance and with what result (but not necessarily all three).

  • Result: V is killed (note that we don’t really criminalise results in themselves, but rather the causation of results).

  • Conduct: in rape: penetration.

  • Circumstance: property belongs to another.

• All crimes have an AR. It is possible to have missing MR elements but this is not so for AR.

Omissions

• Stephen LJ: “It is not a crime to cause death or injury, even intentionally, by any omission”.

• This is not strictly true, but we are usually unwilling to prosecute for omissions:

  • Criminal liability for failure to act breaches autonomy.

  • It is less burdensome of the law to require someone to refrain from doing something then it is to oblige him or her to do it.

• Often difficult to distinguish between acts and omissions (e.g. child accidentally puts hand on D’s genitals in Speck, but D is guilty of an offence by positive act).

  • Note relevance of ‘killing’ v ‘letting die’. Doctors could turn of life support in Airedale v Bland because it was allowing nature to take its course. Mustill: ‘the omission to perform what had previously been a duty will’ not be illegal.

• EXCEPTIONS:

  • Duty to act: can arise by virtue of (note that where there is a duty D must do what is reasonable, as assessed by a jury):

    • Automatically arising duty e.g. parent.

    • Assumed duty for a person e.g. carer. Includes stepparent; this is a continuing duty once adopted (Gibbins v Proctor, Stone and Dobinson).

    • Contractual obligation (Pitwood)

    • Statute: failure to provide a breath specimen to a police officer. Also in Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

    • Common law duty: most common is refusal to assist a police officer when called upon to aid in restoring peace.

• D creates a dangerous situation – the Miller principle, where D fell asleep and caused a fire from his cigarette. He had a ‘responsibility’ to put out the resulting fire. Subtly expanded in Evans.

• Continuing act – sometimes courts have chosen to treat an omission as a ‘continuing act’. In Fagan v MPC, D ran over a policeman’s foot and failed to move when he realised. The act was treated as continuing, but in reality it was liability for omission.

Causation

• Causation in criminal law is based largely on common sense with a remoteness of damage filter being built into our heads.

• The law believes that people are responsible for their own actions and most of the time contextual background information will be irrelevant in determining guilt.

• But-for causation can be applied, but it tends to be too wide in some circumstances. The test is that D’s act must be an ‘operating and substantial’ cause.

• Note that there can be more than one cause: D’s act may be a cause rather than the cause. Where there are multiple causes, we will usually ask if, by the time the consequence came about, was D’s action still a substantial and operating cause?

  • Note: where causes are concurrent, D’s act need not be enough to cause the harm in itself.

• There may be fault, but if no causation can be proved then there is no crime e.g. Dalloway – child killed by cart where driver is not holding reigns, but even ability to control the house would not have saved her.

Novus actus interveniens:

• The free and voluntary act of a third party can break the chain of causation, if it renders D’s act no longer a substantial and operating cause of the result.

• Third party voluntary acts:

  • Where the third party makes a fully voluntary decision to act as he does, it is proper that his act breaks the chain of causation.

    • Pagett – D used his girlfriend V as a shield against police. He shot at police, who shot back, killing V. D had caused V’s death – the firing back was instinctive and could be treated like a ricocheting bullet.

    • Kennedy (No 2) – A drug dealer who prepares a syringe which is then willingly administered by a drug user is not guilty of manslaughter should they die as a result. The decision must be fully informed – some debate over the notion of vulnerability of V.

    • Evans – D prepared heroin for her half sister V. She willing injected, then became very ill. D failed to get medical attention for her and cared for her throughout the night. This...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Law Notes.