Actus Reus

Omissions and Causation

Actus Reus- an Introduction• Actus Reus is the

physical part of a crime.• It can be an act.• It can be a failure to act

(an Omission).• It can be a state of

affairs case- Larsonneur.• It usually has to be

voluntary with D conscious of his actions- Hill V Baxter.

Omissions- Introduction

• This is a failure to act. It usually won’t make D guilty of an offence. It means that if I stood there and watched someone died I wouldn’t be guilty of an offence.

• There are however some exceptions to this rule…

The Duties• Statutory Duty- A duty imposed by a statute. Road

Traffic Act- Failure to provide a specimen of breath.• Contractual Duty- A duty arising because of a

contractual agreement. Pitwood.• Relationship Duty- A duty arising because of a

relationship. Gibbons and Proctor.• Voluntary Duty- A duty someone has taken voluntarily.

Stone and Dobinson. • A duty because of official Position- Where a certain

job or position creates the duty. Dytham.• A duty because a dangerous set of events has

been set in motion- Where D has set some dangerous events in motion and omits to act upon it. Miller

Further Duties

• Khan and Khan says there could be more than those six duties.

• Duty of Doctors- If it is within the patients best interest, the Doctor can withdraw feed from a patient. Airedale NHS Trust V Bland.

• Euthanasia is unlawful.

Good about Omissions• It is fair that the Police have a duty to

protect the public.• It is good that parents have a duty of

care over their children.• It is fair that those who set a dangerous

chain of events in motion are expected to take reasonable steps to solve it.

• It is fair that those who undertake duties voluntary are expected to live up to what they agree to do.

Bad about Omissions• Khan and Khan says there could be more than

six duties. It does not specify what they are and for what they apply. Someone could be omitting and not even know it.

• Duties from a statute can be applied to lots of different scenarios, too many for anyone to know.

• Too many statutes impose duties. It is impossible for someone to know them all.

• Duty of Doctor’s is a difficult subject. Nothing defines the line between best interest and euthanasia.

Causation- Introduction• Causation tests whether someone should

be blamed for an offence or not. There are two tests to answer this question.

• The first test is Factual Causation. This asks if D committed the Actus Reus or not. “But for D’s actions, would V be in that situation”.

• The second test is Legal Causation. This tests whether it is fair to blame D or not. Has D made more than a minimal contribution to the consequence.

Causation- The Tests

• Factual- “But for D’s actions would V be in situation?”. This means that if D hadn’t done what he apparently did, would V still be in the consequence? Pagett.

• Legal- The legal test tests whether it is fair to blame D or not. This tests whether D made more than a minimal contribution and is it fair to blame D from this contribution. Marchant and Muntz.

Causation- A few Points

• More than one act can contribute to the consequence. The rule is that D’s act should be more than minimal.

• D’s actions don’t have to be the main cause or a substantial cause, it just has to be more than minimal. There should be more than a slight trifling link between D’s act and the outcome. Kimsey.

Causation- The Thin Skull Rule

• D takes V as he finds him.

• If V has some other condition that D is unaware of, and D commits the Actus Reus and the unknown condition is made worse as a result, D will still be liable. Blaue.

Causation- Chain of Causation• There is a chain between what D did and the

result on V.• This chain can be broken by the act of a third

party. This could be medical.• It can be broken by V’s own acts.• It can be broken by an unpredictable natural

event.• To break the chain it must be very separate

from D’s original act.• If D’s act causes a likely response from a

third party he is still likely to be guilty. Pagett.

Causation- Medical Treatment

• Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so potent and so separate from D’s act it renders the act as insignificant.

• Smith and Cheshire show poor medical treatment with D still being guilty. This is usually the way it goes.

• Jordan showed D being guilty. This is rare and unusual.

Causation- Fright or Flight Rule

• If V tries to escape and dies as a result of the escape or during the escape, or even becomes more injured, it is likely D will still be guilty. Roberts. Corbett.

• If V’s actions are reasonably foreseeable it is likely D will still be guilty. Marjoram.

• The chain will be broken if D does something so daft or unexpected that no reasonable person could foresee it. Williams.

Causation- V’s Self Neglect

• If V mistreats or neglects his injuries it will not break the chain of causation. Holland. Blaue. Dear.

• D must accept that V could be irrational, stupid, religious, afraid of hospital or refuses treatment. D will still be guilty.

Causation- The Good

• It is fair that it tests that D actually did it and if it is fair to blame D for it.

• It is fair that D gets convicted if thin skull rule appropriate, as it was his actions that caused it.

• It’s fair that unpredictable natural events break the chain of causation.

Causation- The Bad

• It is unfair that if V refuses treatment D is still responsible.

• It is unfair that if bad medical treatment kills V, D could still be liable.

• It is unfair that V not taking care of himself doesn’t break the chain.

• It isn’t fair that if D’s act isn’t the main cause he may still be guilty.

• What defines a “slight or trifling link?” or “minimal contribution?”