Topic 2 CL – Actus Reus
Structure of offences
R “actus non facit nisi mens sit rea”
o An act does not make someone guilty unless the mind is also guilty
o Actus reus: ‘guilty act’ (external element)
o Mens rea: ‘guilty mind’ (internal element)
R Exception: strict liabilities offences e.g. driving without insurance
R Defenses e.g. self defense
Terminology
Conduct crime = requires and act or omission to take place In certain circumstances
Circumstances = depend on the event in question, where conduct needs to take place in
certain circumstances is called conduct crime e.g. rape.
Result crimes = there must be an act or omission taking place in prescribed circumstances
which also bring about a prescribed result e.g. murder – cannot be guilty for murder if the
person isn’t dead.
Voluntary acts
R Free will Is in operation, positive will to act.
R Bratty v A-G for Norther Ireland [1963] AC 386 - requirement that it is a voluntary
act is essential in every case.
R Automatism: involuntariness and/or unconsciousness? Hill v. Baxter [1958] 1 QB
277 e.g. D being in a daze due to a bang on the head.
R situational/ ‘state of affairs’ offences?
o Winzar v. Chief Constable of Kent (1983) unreported,
o The Times, 28 March; R v Larsonneur (1934) 24 Cr App R 74.
R Offences of possession? No requirement of voluntary act or omission to act. Dilutes
requirement for voluntary act.
o Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.5(2)
Distinguishing between acts and omissions
R Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439.
R Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland [1993] AC 789
, o Lord Goff tried to distinguish between positively ending someone’s life and
withdrawing life sustaining treatment.
o House of lords allowed withdrawal of treatment as they decided this was an
omission, not murder which would be a positive act.
Actus Reus – Omissions
Omissions: liability?
R Principle: no general liability for omission to act.
R Contrasts with other countries: no “bad Samaritan’ laws.
R Necessity of a duty to act.
Statutory/ contractual duty to act
R Statutory duty: e.g s.6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
o Criminal offence when stopped by police officer and asked to give breath
& not providing.
o Contractual duty: R v. Pitwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
D went on lunch leaving railway line open and cart went across an
got hit killing the driver.
It was his duty to shut the barrier, brings criminal liability with
death of driver and contractual duty of his job.
Nature of Relationship
R R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 CR App R 134. – parents duty to child.
R R v. Sheppard (1862) Le & Ca 147.
R R v. Hood [2003] EWCA Crim 2772
R R.v Smith (1826) 172 ER 203 – siblings don’t have duty to act.
R R v. Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650. – step siblings have a duty to act.
R R v. Adomako [1995]. 1 A.C 171. – doctors have duty to act in relation to their
patients.
R R v. Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354 -
Endangerment
R R v. Miller [1983] 2 AC 161
o Accidentally set mattress on fire in a house but then moved into a different
room rather than putting fire out.
o Convicted for Arson, it was an omission to act as once his mens rea formed
he didn’t act.
R R v. Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650
2
Structure of offences
R “actus non facit nisi mens sit rea”
o An act does not make someone guilty unless the mind is also guilty
o Actus reus: ‘guilty act’ (external element)
o Mens rea: ‘guilty mind’ (internal element)
R Exception: strict liabilities offences e.g. driving without insurance
R Defenses e.g. self defense
Terminology
Conduct crime = requires and act or omission to take place In certain circumstances
Circumstances = depend on the event in question, where conduct needs to take place in
certain circumstances is called conduct crime e.g. rape.
Result crimes = there must be an act or omission taking place in prescribed circumstances
which also bring about a prescribed result e.g. murder – cannot be guilty for murder if the
person isn’t dead.
Voluntary acts
R Free will Is in operation, positive will to act.
R Bratty v A-G for Norther Ireland [1963] AC 386 - requirement that it is a voluntary
act is essential in every case.
R Automatism: involuntariness and/or unconsciousness? Hill v. Baxter [1958] 1 QB
277 e.g. D being in a daze due to a bang on the head.
R situational/ ‘state of affairs’ offences?
o Winzar v. Chief Constable of Kent (1983) unreported,
o The Times, 28 March; R v Larsonneur (1934) 24 Cr App R 74.
R Offences of possession? No requirement of voluntary act or omission to act. Dilutes
requirement for voluntary act.
o Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.5(2)
Distinguishing between acts and omissions
R Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439.
R Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland [1993] AC 789
, o Lord Goff tried to distinguish between positively ending someone’s life and
withdrawing life sustaining treatment.
o House of lords allowed withdrawal of treatment as they decided this was an
omission, not murder which would be a positive act.
Actus Reus – Omissions
Omissions: liability?
R Principle: no general liability for omission to act.
R Contrasts with other countries: no “bad Samaritan’ laws.
R Necessity of a duty to act.
Statutory/ contractual duty to act
R Statutory duty: e.g s.6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
o Criminal offence when stopped by police officer and asked to give breath
& not providing.
o Contractual duty: R v. Pitwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
D went on lunch leaving railway line open and cart went across an
got hit killing the driver.
It was his duty to shut the barrier, brings criminal liability with
death of driver and contractual duty of his job.
Nature of Relationship
R R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 CR App R 134. – parents duty to child.
R R v. Sheppard (1862) Le & Ca 147.
R R v. Hood [2003] EWCA Crim 2772
R R.v Smith (1826) 172 ER 203 – siblings don’t have duty to act.
R R v. Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650. – step siblings have a duty to act.
R R v. Adomako [1995]. 1 A.C 171. – doctors have duty to act in relation to their
patients.
R R v. Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354 -
Endangerment
R R v. Miller [1983] 2 AC 161
o Accidentally set mattress on fire in a house but then moved into a different
room rather than putting fire out.
o Convicted for Arson, it was an omission to act as once his mens rea formed
he didn’t act.
R R v. Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650
2
