Holly Lawton Unit 3 P3
Unit 3 P3
Actus Reus
The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime, it can be an act, a failure to
act (an omission) or a state of affairs. For some crimes the actus reus must have
an act or omission and also result in a consequence. This can be seen in an
assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s 47 Offences Against the Person Act
1861). There must be the threat or the use of force and there must be a
consequence of ‘actual bodily harm’, in other words some injury to the victim.
This could be just a bruise or it could be a broken nose or broken arm. It could
even be a psychiatric injury.
Voluntary nature of Actus Reus – The act or omission must be voluntary on the
part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions then he
has not committed the actus reus. In Hill v Baxter 1958 the court gave examples
where a driver of a vehicle could not be said to be doing the act of driving
voluntarily. These include where a driver lost control over his vehicle because he
was stung by a swarm of bees, was struck on the head by a stone or had a heart
attack while driving.
Involuntary acts and assaults – Involuntary conduct can occur in assaults. One
example is where a person pushes another causing them to bump into the
victim. In this situation the act of the person who has been pushed is involuntary.
They will not be guilty of any assault. However it is possible (depending on
whether they have the necessary mens rea) that the person who did the pushing
will be guilty of assaulting the person they pushed and of assaulting the person
who was bumped into. Another example of an involuntary action is where the
defendant hits another person due to a reflex action or a muscle spasm. These
examples show that the criminal law is concerned with the fault on the part of
the defendant. Where there is an absence of fault then the defendant is usually
not liable.
State of affairs cases – However, there are some rare instances in which the
defendant has been convicted even though he or she did not act voluntarily.
These situations involve what are known as state of affairs cases. In Larsonneur
1933 the defendant had been ordered to leave the UK. She decided to go to Eire,
but the Irish police deported her and took her back to the UK. She did not wish to
go back and was certainly not doing this voluntarily. When she landed in the UK
she was immediately arrested and charged with ‘being an alien with whom leave
to land in the UK had been refused, was found in the UK’. She was convicted
because she was an alien who had been refused leave to land and she was found
in the UK. It did not matter that she had been brought back by the Irish police
against her will.
Omissions as Actus Reus – The normal rule is than an omission cannot make a
person guilty of an offence. This was explained by Stephen J, a nineteenth-
century judge, in the following way ‘A sees B drowning and is able to save him by
, Holly Lawton Unit 3 P3
holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned. A
has committed no offence.’
Exceptions to the rule – there are exceptions to the rule that an omission cannot
make a person guilty of an offence. In some cases it is possible for a failure to act
(an omission) to be the actus reus. An Act of Parliament can create liability for an
omission. Examples include the offences of failing to report a road traffic
accident and of failing to provide a specimen of breath. For common law crimes
an omission is only sufficient for the actus reus where there is a duty to act.
There are five ways in which a duty exists.
1. A Contractual Duty: In Pittwood 1902 a railway crossing keeper omitted
to shut the gates so that a person crossing the line was struck and killed
by a train. The keeper was guilty of manslaughter. A more modern
example would be of a lifeguard at a beach who leaves his post
unattended. His failure to do his duty could make him guilty of an offence
if a swimmer was injured.
2. A duty because of a relationship (usually parent and child): In
Gibbins and Proctor 1918 a child’s father and his mistress failed to feed
the child, so that it died of starvation; they were guilty of murder.
3. A duty which has been taken on voluntarily: In Stone and Dobinson
1977 Stone’s elderly sister came to live with the defendants. She became
ill and unable to care for herself. She died. The two defendants were
convicted of manslaughter through failure to care for her or summon help
when she became helpless.
4. A duty through one’s official position: In Dythem 1979 a police officer
witnessed a violent attack on the victim, but took no steps to intervene or
summon help; instead he drove away from the scene. The officer was
guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his
duty.
5. A duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a
chain of events: In Miller 1983 a squatter accidentally started a fire.
When he realised this he left the room and went to sleep in another room.
He did not attempt to put out the fire or summon help. He was guilty of
arson.
Doctor’s duties – if discontinuance of medical treatment is in the best interests of
the patient then this is not an omission which can form the actus reus. This was
decided in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993 in which the NHS Trust was given
permission to stop artificial feeding of a man who had been in a persistent
vegetative state for over 3 years.
Causation – Where a consequence must be proved to, then the prosecution has
to show that
The defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence and
The defendant’s conduct was in law the cause of that consequence and
There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
Unit 3 P3
Actus Reus
The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime, it can be an act, a failure to
act (an omission) or a state of affairs. For some crimes the actus reus must have
an act or omission and also result in a consequence. This can be seen in an
assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s 47 Offences Against the Person Act
1861). There must be the threat or the use of force and there must be a
consequence of ‘actual bodily harm’, in other words some injury to the victim.
This could be just a bruise or it could be a broken nose or broken arm. It could
even be a psychiatric injury.
Voluntary nature of Actus Reus – The act or omission must be voluntary on the
part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions then he
has not committed the actus reus. In Hill v Baxter 1958 the court gave examples
where a driver of a vehicle could not be said to be doing the act of driving
voluntarily. These include where a driver lost control over his vehicle because he
was stung by a swarm of bees, was struck on the head by a stone or had a heart
attack while driving.
Involuntary acts and assaults – Involuntary conduct can occur in assaults. One
example is where a person pushes another causing them to bump into the
victim. In this situation the act of the person who has been pushed is involuntary.
They will not be guilty of any assault. However it is possible (depending on
whether they have the necessary mens rea) that the person who did the pushing
will be guilty of assaulting the person they pushed and of assaulting the person
who was bumped into. Another example of an involuntary action is where the
defendant hits another person due to a reflex action or a muscle spasm. These
examples show that the criminal law is concerned with the fault on the part of
the defendant. Where there is an absence of fault then the defendant is usually
not liable.
State of affairs cases – However, there are some rare instances in which the
defendant has been convicted even though he or she did not act voluntarily.
These situations involve what are known as state of affairs cases. In Larsonneur
1933 the defendant had been ordered to leave the UK. She decided to go to Eire,
but the Irish police deported her and took her back to the UK. She did not wish to
go back and was certainly not doing this voluntarily. When she landed in the UK
she was immediately arrested and charged with ‘being an alien with whom leave
to land in the UK had been refused, was found in the UK’. She was convicted
because she was an alien who had been refused leave to land and she was found
in the UK. It did not matter that she had been brought back by the Irish police
against her will.
Omissions as Actus Reus – The normal rule is than an omission cannot make a
person guilty of an offence. This was explained by Stephen J, a nineteenth-
century judge, in the following way ‘A sees B drowning and is able to save him by
, Holly Lawton Unit 3 P3
holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned. A
has committed no offence.’
Exceptions to the rule – there are exceptions to the rule that an omission cannot
make a person guilty of an offence. In some cases it is possible for a failure to act
(an omission) to be the actus reus. An Act of Parliament can create liability for an
omission. Examples include the offences of failing to report a road traffic
accident and of failing to provide a specimen of breath. For common law crimes
an omission is only sufficient for the actus reus where there is a duty to act.
There are five ways in which a duty exists.
1. A Contractual Duty: In Pittwood 1902 a railway crossing keeper omitted
to shut the gates so that a person crossing the line was struck and killed
by a train. The keeper was guilty of manslaughter. A more modern
example would be of a lifeguard at a beach who leaves his post
unattended. His failure to do his duty could make him guilty of an offence
if a swimmer was injured.
2. A duty because of a relationship (usually parent and child): In
Gibbins and Proctor 1918 a child’s father and his mistress failed to feed
the child, so that it died of starvation; they were guilty of murder.
3. A duty which has been taken on voluntarily: In Stone and Dobinson
1977 Stone’s elderly sister came to live with the defendants. She became
ill and unable to care for herself. She died. The two defendants were
convicted of manslaughter through failure to care for her or summon help
when she became helpless.
4. A duty through one’s official position: In Dythem 1979 a police officer
witnessed a violent attack on the victim, but took no steps to intervene or
summon help; instead he drove away from the scene. The officer was
guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his
duty.
5. A duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a
chain of events: In Miller 1983 a squatter accidentally started a fire.
When he realised this he left the room and went to sleep in another room.
He did not attempt to put out the fire or summon help. He was guilty of
arson.
Doctor’s duties – if discontinuance of medical treatment is in the best interests of
the patient then this is not an omission which can form the actus reus. This was
decided in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993 in which the NHS Trust was given
permission to stop artificial feeding of a man who had been in a persistent
vegetative state for over 3 years.
Causation – Where a consequence must be proved to, then the prosecution has
to show that
The defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence and
The defendant’s conduct was in law the cause of that consequence and
There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
