Criminal Law
Actus Reus
Actus Reus, the physical element of a crime, the guilty act. It is the unlawful act described in
the definition of the offence and is a voluntary positive act or omission.
The act must be both voluntary and unlawful (Hill v Baxter)
Involuntary acts may also be the result of a medical condition, such as muscle spasms by
fits / seizures, or acts committed whilst unconscious such as under hypnotic trance / reflexes
An omission is a failure to act. The English Legal System has no “Good Samaritan Law”
and thus cannot be criminally liable for failing to act. There is only liability where there is a
duty to act, and he fails to fulfil that duty.
1. Statutory Duty: The Road Traffic Act 1988, imposes a duty on motorists to provide
breath specimens, wearing seatbelts, reporting road accidents etc.
2. Duty through official position: R v Dytham, a police officer has a duty to intervene
3. Contractual duty: R v Pitwood, railway man didn’t shut crossing when train went past
4. Voluntary assumption of responsibility: Gibbons & Proctor, deliberately starved
child
5. Duty created by relationship: R v Evans, mum didn’t get medical help, put her to bed
6. Duty from setting in motion a chain of events: R v Miller, squatter set fire to mattress
Causation proving a causal link between the act and the consequence:
Factual causation: “But For Test” (R v White), But for D’s actions, would V suffer harm
Legal causation: Was D’s act more than minimal contribution to V’s harm (R v Kimsey)
Was there any Novus Actus Interveniens?
- Act of Victim, was the victim’s actions proportionate to the threat they face and
reasonable in the circumstances? (R v Marjoram), V jumped out of a fast moving car
- Act of God, an unpredictable event such as extreme weather, freak accident,
something so unforeseeable and extraordinary
- Act of Third Party (Medical Intervention), where a third party interferes with the act or
help given so much that it breaks the chain of causation (R v Jordan), was given
antibiotics but died of pneumonia (original action was the operating cause of death).
Thin Skull Rule: the victim must be treated as they are, regardless of any underlying health
issues which may have contributed to the worsening of a criminal act (R v Hayward).
, Criminal Law
Voluntary Manslaughter: Murder
Sir Edward Coke defined murder as “the unlawful killing of a creature in being within the
King’s Peace with malice aforethought”.
An unlawful killing means that it was not done in self defence, the victim consent to their
death, nor did they kill during war time.
With regards to the killing we must consider causation. D must be the factual cause of V’s
death (The ‘But for test’ R v White), and the legal cause (their contribution must have been
more than de minimus contribution to the death- R v Kimsey). D must also take the victim
as he finds them, following the thin skull rule (R v Haywood). Should the killing be done by
an omission, there must be an active and relevant duty which imposes a responsibility and
liability upon D’s failure to act.
A creature in being is any person capable of it’s own independent existence, excluding any
foetuses in the womb (Attorney General's Reference 3), and people with no brain stem
activity (R v Malcherek)
Within the King’s Peace means that it was not done during war time and applies only to
soldiers in active combat. Killing of prisoners of war however, will amount to murder.
The Mens Rea for Murder is Malice Aforethought. This has been held to mean intention to
kill or intention to cause GBH (R v Vickers). Intention is defined as D’s main aim or purpose
under R v Mohan, and this involves indirect intention, where the defendant takes a
reasonably foreseeable risk (R v Woolin) and that he knew that it was (Matthews and
Alleyne).
, Criminal Law
Voluntary Manslaughter: Specific Partial Defences
There are two specific defences for murder: Diminished Responsibility and Loss of Control.
Diminished Responsibility
Diminished Responsibility is a partial defence under the Homicide Act 1957, where D
suffers an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition
which substantially impairs D, to not know the nature of his conduct, form a rational
judgement, or exercise self control AND provides an explanation for the killing.
An abnormality of mental functioning has been held to be any behaviour so abnormal that
any ordinary person would term it abnormal in the case of R v Byrne.
This must be a consequence of a recognised medical condition such as depression (R v
Gittens), battered person’s syndrome (R v Ahluwalia) or Alcohol Dependence Syndrome (R
v Wood) or PTSD (R v Brown).
Where Defendant is intoxicated, we must consider whether this is a RMC. If Defendant was
voluntarily intoxicated then there is no defence (R v Dowds), if he is intoxicated but also has
an AMF, then it may be disregarded and the AMF takes precedent over the intoxication (R v
Deichmann), and if Defendant was involuntarily intoxicated,then there may be a defence of
DR (R v Wood)
This must substantially impair Defendant’s ability to understand the nature and quality of his
act, form a rational judgement, and exercise self control, where a substantial impairment is
one that more than minimally impairs (R v Brown), his ability to understand right and wrong
(R v Conroy).
This must provide an explanation for the killing so that it is a significant and operating cause
in the act.
Loss of Control
Loss of control is where Defendant suffered a loss of control arising from a qualifying trigger,
where a person of Defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self
restraint, and in the same circumstances as Defendant, might have reacted in the same way.
A loss of control is where his ability to restrain himself was so overwhelmed by emotional
passion that he couldn’t resist the impulse to attack (R v Clinton). This does not have to be
a sudden overwhelming, and long as it is not seen to be a revenge attack (R v Jewell),
where Defendant was a V of domestic abuse and killed their partner.
This can arise from either the anger trigger or the fear trigger.
The anger trigger is where things said or done are of an extremely grave nature which
caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (R v Zebedee).
The fear trigger is where D acted out of fear of serious violence for themselves or another (R
v Ward), in order to protect himself or others in the situation he was in.
Actus Reus
Actus Reus, the physical element of a crime, the guilty act. It is the unlawful act described in
the definition of the offence and is a voluntary positive act or omission.
The act must be both voluntary and unlawful (Hill v Baxter)
Involuntary acts may also be the result of a medical condition, such as muscle spasms by
fits / seizures, or acts committed whilst unconscious such as under hypnotic trance / reflexes
An omission is a failure to act. The English Legal System has no “Good Samaritan Law”
and thus cannot be criminally liable for failing to act. There is only liability where there is a
duty to act, and he fails to fulfil that duty.
1. Statutory Duty: The Road Traffic Act 1988, imposes a duty on motorists to provide
breath specimens, wearing seatbelts, reporting road accidents etc.
2. Duty through official position: R v Dytham, a police officer has a duty to intervene
3. Contractual duty: R v Pitwood, railway man didn’t shut crossing when train went past
4. Voluntary assumption of responsibility: Gibbons & Proctor, deliberately starved
child
5. Duty created by relationship: R v Evans, mum didn’t get medical help, put her to bed
6. Duty from setting in motion a chain of events: R v Miller, squatter set fire to mattress
Causation proving a causal link between the act and the consequence:
Factual causation: “But For Test” (R v White), But for D’s actions, would V suffer harm
Legal causation: Was D’s act more than minimal contribution to V’s harm (R v Kimsey)
Was there any Novus Actus Interveniens?
- Act of Victim, was the victim’s actions proportionate to the threat they face and
reasonable in the circumstances? (R v Marjoram), V jumped out of a fast moving car
- Act of God, an unpredictable event such as extreme weather, freak accident,
something so unforeseeable and extraordinary
- Act of Third Party (Medical Intervention), where a third party interferes with the act or
help given so much that it breaks the chain of causation (R v Jordan), was given
antibiotics but died of pneumonia (original action was the operating cause of death).
Thin Skull Rule: the victim must be treated as they are, regardless of any underlying health
issues which may have contributed to the worsening of a criminal act (R v Hayward).
, Criminal Law
Voluntary Manslaughter: Murder
Sir Edward Coke defined murder as “the unlawful killing of a creature in being within the
King’s Peace with malice aforethought”.
An unlawful killing means that it was not done in self defence, the victim consent to their
death, nor did they kill during war time.
With regards to the killing we must consider causation. D must be the factual cause of V’s
death (The ‘But for test’ R v White), and the legal cause (their contribution must have been
more than de minimus contribution to the death- R v Kimsey). D must also take the victim
as he finds them, following the thin skull rule (R v Haywood). Should the killing be done by
an omission, there must be an active and relevant duty which imposes a responsibility and
liability upon D’s failure to act.
A creature in being is any person capable of it’s own independent existence, excluding any
foetuses in the womb (Attorney General's Reference 3), and people with no brain stem
activity (R v Malcherek)
Within the King’s Peace means that it was not done during war time and applies only to
soldiers in active combat. Killing of prisoners of war however, will amount to murder.
The Mens Rea for Murder is Malice Aforethought. This has been held to mean intention to
kill or intention to cause GBH (R v Vickers). Intention is defined as D’s main aim or purpose
under R v Mohan, and this involves indirect intention, where the defendant takes a
reasonably foreseeable risk (R v Woolin) and that he knew that it was (Matthews and
Alleyne).
, Criminal Law
Voluntary Manslaughter: Specific Partial Defences
There are two specific defences for murder: Diminished Responsibility and Loss of Control.
Diminished Responsibility
Diminished Responsibility is a partial defence under the Homicide Act 1957, where D
suffers an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition
which substantially impairs D, to not know the nature of his conduct, form a rational
judgement, or exercise self control AND provides an explanation for the killing.
An abnormality of mental functioning has been held to be any behaviour so abnormal that
any ordinary person would term it abnormal in the case of R v Byrne.
This must be a consequence of a recognised medical condition such as depression (R v
Gittens), battered person’s syndrome (R v Ahluwalia) or Alcohol Dependence Syndrome (R
v Wood) or PTSD (R v Brown).
Where Defendant is intoxicated, we must consider whether this is a RMC. If Defendant was
voluntarily intoxicated then there is no defence (R v Dowds), if he is intoxicated but also has
an AMF, then it may be disregarded and the AMF takes precedent over the intoxication (R v
Deichmann), and if Defendant was involuntarily intoxicated,then there may be a defence of
DR (R v Wood)
This must substantially impair Defendant’s ability to understand the nature and quality of his
act, form a rational judgement, and exercise self control, where a substantial impairment is
one that more than minimally impairs (R v Brown), his ability to understand right and wrong
(R v Conroy).
This must provide an explanation for the killing so that it is a significant and operating cause
in the act.
Loss of Control
Loss of control is where Defendant suffered a loss of control arising from a qualifying trigger,
where a person of Defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self
restraint, and in the same circumstances as Defendant, might have reacted in the same way.
A loss of control is where his ability to restrain himself was so overwhelmed by emotional
passion that he couldn’t resist the impulse to attack (R v Clinton). This does not have to be
a sudden overwhelming, and long as it is not seen to be a revenge attack (R v Jewell),
where Defendant was a V of domestic abuse and killed their partner.
This can arise from either the anger trigger or the fear trigger.
The anger trigger is where things said or done are of an extremely grave nature which
caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (R v Zebedee).
The fear trigger is where D acted out of fear of serious violence for themselves or another (R
v Ward), in order to protect himself or others in the situation he was in.
