Actus Reus
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must establish:
a) Guilty conduct by the defendant (actus reus).
b) Guilty state of mind by the defendant (mens rea).
c) Absence of any valid defence.
Types of Crimes:
a) Conduct Crime: An act or an act of omission, e.g., perjury.
b) Result Crime: A result must have been caused by the conduct of the defendant.
Proof of causation is required. E.g., murder, criminal damage.
c) Circumstances or state of affairs crime: The existence of a set of circumstances
at the time of the defendant’s conduct e.g., being in charge of a motor vehicle while
unfit due to drink or drugs.
Omissions
In most cases, a defendant would have taken positive steps in relation to a
particular crime. The general principle is that there can be no criminal liability for
failing to act. Exceptions:
• Statutory Offences:
o Statutory Duty to Act: E.g., Failing to stop at a red light. Penalties usually
result in a fine.
• Common Law Offences
Duty arising Out of Contract
If a contract of employment specifies certain obligations to act, a failure to comply
can lead to criminal liability e.g., doctors, emergency services, lifeguards.
Case Law Example: R v Pittwood
• A railway crossing gatekeeper failed to close the gate before he went off to lunch
and a person was killed by a train. He was liable in criminal court for the
consequences of his failure to act.
Special Relationship
Where there is a special relationship between the defendant and victim (e.g., family)
the defendant could incur criminal liability for failing to act.
• Furthermore, a special relationship is formed if one assumes a duty to care for
the victim or voluntarily undertake to care for another who cannot care for
themselves
Case Law Examples:
• R v Gibbins and Proctor: The defendants were convicted of murdering a 7-
year-old child who died of starvation. The first defendant was the father, second
his partner. A parent has a duty of care for his child.
• R v Stone and Dobinson: The 2 defendants took in Stone’s sister to live with
them. She suffered with anorexia and was bed-ridden. Defendants did not
, properly assist her, and she died of blood poisoning. They had a duty of care
and caused the victim’s death.
Terminally Ill
Duty also remains if you follow the wishes of a terminally ill family member and they
are deemed unable to have made rational decisions at the time.
• R v Smith: defendant was charged with manslaughter of his wife who died after
still-birth. The wife had instructed not to seek medical attention
• But duty can be released in some medical situations.
Public Duty to Act
A defendant may be under a public duty to act if they hold a position of public
authority or responsibility.
• Dytham: police officer, while on duty, saw a man being beaten to death by a club
bouncer. He did not intervene and was convicted.
Defendant who Creates a Dangerous Situation
• A person can be criminal liable if he fails to take action to remove a danger he
created and he is aware of it.
• The duty is established on the subjective realisation of the danger created
i.e., when they ought to have realised the danger.
• It is only necessary to take reasonable steps, and it is necessary to invoke the
Miller principle for result crime.
• R v Miller: A squatter lit a cigarette and fell asleep. Cigarette fell on the mattress
causing it to smoulder. Instead of taking steps to stop the smouldering he moved
to another room. He was charged with criminal damage to the property after it
caught fire because he failed to take any steps, not because he caused it.
Causation
Prosecution must demonstrate the accused act, or omission actually caused the
prohibited consequence. This is for result crime. Both factual and legal causation
must be present for causation to be established as part of actus reus.
• Factual Causation: The but for test. But for the defendant’s actions, the result
would not have occurred.
Legal Causation
The ‘chain of causation’. Prosecution must prove legal causation and that there
was no new intervening act, which broke the chain of causation.
a) The consequence must be attributable to a culpable act or omission.
b) The culpable act must be more than a minimal cause of the consequence.
a. If his conduct was the ‘operating and substantial cause’ of the result.
c) But does not need to be the sole cause.
, a. In law, the defendant’s act needs not be the sole cause, or even the main
cause, of the victim’s death, it being enough that his act or omission
contributed significantly to that result’.
d) The accused must take their victim as they find them, the thin skull rule.
a. Thin Skull Rule: A victim’s particular susceptibility to an injury due to a pre-
existing condition does not break the chain of causation, e.g., religious
beliefs against blood transfusion.
e) The chain of causation must not be broken.
Intervening Act
Three possible intervening acts:
• Where the victim acts in a particular way.
• Where an act by some other person intervenes between the defendant’s conduct
and the result.
• Where some event occurs between the defendant’s conduct and the end result.
The argument will not succeed if:
a) Despite there being an intervening event, the injuries inflicted by the defendant
were still an operating and substantial cause of death.
b) If there was an intervening act, this was foreseen or foreseeable.
Victim’s Acts
Escapes:
For an escape to break the chain of causation, it must be:
a) Unforeseen and voluntary.
b) A foreseeable consequence of the unlawful act must be proportionate to the
threat posed.
a. Whether the victim’s response was proportionate to the threat and
whether the escape is within the range of reasonable responses to be
expected of a victim in that situation.
b. R v Wallace: Suicide was held to be reasonably foreseeable and a
reasonable response because of the defendant throwing acid at the victim
which caused horrific burns. Chain of causation was not broken.
Third Party Intervention
• A defendant is not liable if a third party’s intervening act is either free, deliberate,
and informed, or is not reasonably foreseeable.
• An act by a third party might break the chain of causation if that act is a voluntary
one which contributes to the result.
Negligent Medical Treatment
• Generally, the conduct of a doctor, even if negligent, does not release the
defendant from liability.
• ‘Unless the negligent treatment was so independent of his act, and it itself so
potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by the
accused acts as insignificant’.
, Natural Events
• A natural event which was not reasonably foreseeable will break the chain of
causation. The foreseeability of the subsequent event is the determining factor
for liability.
• Chain of causation may also be broken by events other than natural e.g., victim
is left in a house that is subsequently blown up in a gas explosion.
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must establish:
a) Guilty conduct by the defendant (actus reus).
b) Guilty state of mind by the defendant (mens rea).
c) Absence of any valid defence.
Types of Crimes:
a) Conduct Crime: An act or an act of omission, e.g., perjury.
b) Result Crime: A result must have been caused by the conduct of the defendant.
Proof of causation is required. E.g., murder, criminal damage.
c) Circumstances or state of affairs crime: The existence of a set of circumstances
at the time of the defendant’s conduct e.g., being in charge of a motor vehicle while
unfit due to drink or drugs.
Omissions
In most cases, a defendant would have taken positive steps in relation to a
particular crime. The general principle is that there can be no criminal liability for
failing to act. Exceptions:
• Statutory Offences:
o Statutory Duty to Act: E.g., Failing to stop at a red light. Penalties usually
result in a fine.
• Common Law Offences
Duty arising Out of Contract
If a contract of employment specifies certain obligations to act, a failure to comply
can lead to criminal liability e.g., doctors, emergency services, lifeguards.
Case Law Example: R v Pittwood
• A railway crossing gatekeeper failed to close the gate before he went off to lunch
and a person was killed by a train. He was liable in criminal court for the
consequences of his failure to act.
Special Relationship
Where there is a special relationship between the defendant and victim (e.g., family)
the defendant could incur criminal liability for failing to act.
• Furthermore, a special relationship is formed if one assumes a duty to care for
the victim or voluntarily undertake to care for another who cannot care for
themselves
Case Law Examples:
• R v Gibbins and Proctor: The defendants were convicted of murdering a 7-
year-old child who died of starvation. The first defendant was the father, second
his partner. A parent has a duty of care for his child.
• R v Stone and Dobinson: The 2 defendants took in Stone’s sister to live with
them. She suffered with anorexia and was bed-ridden. Defendants did not
, properly assist her, and she died of blood poisoning. They had a duty of care
and caused the victim’s death.
Terminally Ill
Duty also remains if you follow the wishes of a terminally ill family member and they
are deemed unable to have made rational decisions at the time.
• R v Smith: defendant was charged with manslaughter of his wife who died after
still-birth. The wife had instructed not to seek medical attention
• But duty can be released in some medical situations.
Public Duty to Act
A defendant may be under a public duty to act if they hold a position of public
authority or responsibility.
• Dytham: police officer, while on duty, saw a man being beaten to death by a club
bouncer. He did not intervene and was convicted.
Defendant who Creates a Dangerous Situation
• A person can be criminal liable if he fails to take action to remove a danger he
created and he is aware of it.
• The duty is established on the subjective realisation of the danger created
i.e., when they ought to have realised the danger.
• It is only necessary to take reasonable steps, and it is necessary to invoke the
Miller principle for result crime.
• R v Miller: A squatter lit a cigarette and fell asleep. Cigarette fell on the mattress
causing it to smoulder. Instead of taking steps to stop the smouldering he moved
to another room. He was charged with criminal damage to the property after it
caught fire because he failed to take any steps, not because he caused it.
Causation
Prosecution must demonstrate the accused act, or omission actually caused the
prohibited consequence. This is for result crime. Both factual and legal causation
must be present for causation to be established as part of actus reus.
• Factual Causation: The but for test. But for the defendant’s actions, the result
would not have occurred.
Legal Causation
The ‘chain of causation’. Prosecution must prove legal causation and that there
was no new intervening act, which broke the chain of causation.
a) The consequence must be attributable to a culpable act or omission.
b) The culpable act must be more than a minimal cause of the consequence.
a. If his conduct was the ‘operating and substantial cause’ of the result.
c) But does not need to be the sole cause.
, a. In law, the defendant’s act needs not be the sole cause, or even the main
cause, of the victim’s death, it being enough that his act or omission
contributed significantly to that result’.
d) The accused must take their victim as they find them, the thin skull rule.
a. Thin Skull Rule: A victim’s particular susceptibility to an injury due to a pre-
existing condition does not break the chain of causation, e.g., religious
beliefs against blood transfusion.
e) The chain of causation must not be broken.
Intervening Act
Three possible intervening acts:
• Where the victim acts in a particular way.
• Where an act by some other person intervenes between the defendant’s conduct
and the result.
• Where some event occurs between the defendant’s conduct and the end result.
The argument will not succeed if:
a) Despite there being an intervening event, the injuries inflicted by the defendant
were still an operating and substantial cause of death.
b) If there was an intervening act, this was foreseen or foreseeable.
Victim’s Acts
Escapes:
For an escape to break the chain of causation, it must be:
a) Unforeseen and voluntary.
b) A foreseeable consequence of the unlawful act must be proportionate to the
threat posed.
a. Whether the victim’s response was proportionate to the threat and
whether the escape is within the range of reasonable responses to be
expected of a victim in that situation.
b. R v Wallace: Suicide was held to be reasonably foreseeable and a
reasonable response because of the defendant throwing acid at the victim
which caused horrific burns. Chain of causation was not broken.
Third Party Intervention
• A defendant is not liable if a third party’s intervening act is either free, deliberate,
and informed, or is not reasonably foreseeable.
• An act by a third party might break the chain of causation if that act is a voluntary
one which contributes to the result.
Negligent Medical Treatment
• Generally, the conduct of a doctor, even if negligent, does not release the
defendant from liability.
• ‘Unless the negligent treatment was so independent of his act, and it itself so
potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by the
accused acts as insignificant’.
, Natural Events
• A natural event which was not reasonably foreseeable will break the chain of
causation. The foreseeability of the subsequent event is the determining factor
for liability.
• Chain of causation may also be broken by events other than natural e.g., victim
is left in a house that is subsequently blown up in a gas explosion.
