Preparation for workshop: actus reus
Actus reus video:
General principle: “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.”
An act does not make a person guilty of a crime unless the mind is legally
blameworthy.
Thus, criminal liability can be broadly distilled into the equation:
Actus Reus + Mens Rea – Defences = Criminal liability
Formula isn’t perfect, but it is useful.
Actus reus: “guilty act”
Proof that someone did a particular act.
Proof that the defendant caused a particular result.
Proof that the result occurred in certain circumstances.
Mens rea: “guilty mind”
Prosecution needs to prove this in order to find someone criminally liable.
Principle of causation: established entirely through common law, meaning that there a no
statutes outlining the principles; as a result, they have developed inconsistently.
If a person’s free, voluntary, and informed act caused harm to the victim then he is
considered responsible for that harm.
Courts have stated consistently that causation is a matter of common sense.
Lord Bingham: “Questions of causation frequently arise in many areas of the law, but
causation is not a single unvarying concept to be mechanically applied without regard to the
context in which the question arises”
Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38 (para 15)
2 elements for establishing causation:
1. Factual causation
A hurdle for legal causation, so always considered first.
Defendant’s actions must be proven to have caused harm to the victim in fact.
Established through the “sine qua non” test = “but for” test. But for the defendant’s
actions the harm would not have occurred. This is relatively easy to establish.
, However, this test should not be applied to rigidly because D will still be a factual
cause where he contributes to a result alongside other causes that may have
independently brought about the result.
o Demonstrated in the case of White [1910] 2 KB 124
White wanted to kill mother to inherit estate, so he put poison in
night-time drink. However, the victim died from a heart attack. Thus,
White was acquitted of murder, but convicted of attempted murder
because “but for” his actions the victim still would have died.
Defendant’s conduct doesn’t have to be the sole cause of death. A good example of this can
be found in the case of Benge (1846) 2 Car & Kir 230.
Benge was a railway foreman in charge of the railway tracks. One day, he misread the
timetable and as a result a train was derailed, and someone died. Benge then went
on to argue that if others had been doing their jobs properly, the incident would not
have occurred. However, Benge was convicted meaning that the defendant’s conduct
does not have to be the sole cause, they just need to be significant.
2. Legal causation
Is the defendant legally blameworthy?
Example in the case of Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273:
Defendant was driving a horse and cart but did not have control of the reigns.
Subsequently, a child ran out in front of the horse and cart and was killed as a result.
However, the court acquitted the defendant of manslaughter because even though
driving without holding the reigns was negligent, the court accepted that there was
nothing the defendant could have done to prevent the child from running out.
Another example in the case of Hughes [2013] UKSC 56:
The court held that causation must be allied to something that it is blameworthy in a
relevant way.
The defendant was driving his car without a license (crime by itself) and crashed into
someone who was high on drugs and driving on the opposite side of the road; the
other driver was killed. The defendant was charged with causing the death and
driving without a full license. However, the supreme court overturned this
conviction, ruling that the defendant’s actions couldn’t be said to be a blameworthy
cause of death; thus, defendant was not criminally liable.
The question of fact is for the jury to decide; however, the defendant’s actions must be
more than de minimus (minimal).
The language for this test varies: sometimes the word “substantial” or operative cause as in
Rafferty [2007] EWCA Crim 1846. However, the wording was a “significant” cause in Wallace
[2018] EWCA Crim 690.
Actus reus video:
General principle: “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.”
An act does not make a person guilty of a crime unless the mind is legally
blameworthy.
Thus, criminal liability can be broadly distilled into the equation:
Actus Reus + Mens Rea – Defences = Criminal liability
Formula isn’t perfect, but it is useful.
Actus reus: “guilty act”
Proof that someone did a particular act.
Proof that the defendant caused a particular result.
Proof that the result occurred in certain circumstances.
Mens rea: “guilty mind”
Prosecution needs to prove this in order to find someone criminally liable.
Principle of causation: established entirely through common law, meaning that there a no
statutes outlining the principles; as a result, they have developed inconsistently.
If a person’s free, voluntary, and informed act caused harm to the victim then he is
considered responsible for that harm.
Courts have stated consistently that causation is a matter of common sense.
Lord Bingham: “Questions of causation frequently arise in many areas of the law, but
causation is not a single unvarying concept to be mechanically applied without regard to the
context in which the question arises”
Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38 (para 15)
2 elements for establishing causation:
1. Factual causation
A hurdle for legal causation, so always considered first.
Defendant’s actions must be proven to have caused harm to the victim in fact.
Established through the “sine qua non” test = “but for” test. But for the defendant’s
actions the harm would not have occurred. This is relatively easy to establish.
, However, this test should not be applied to rigidly because D will still be a factual
cause where he contributes to a result alongside other causes that may have
independently brought about the result.
o Demonstrated in the case of White [1910] 2 KB 124
White wanted to kill mother to inherit estate, so he put poison in
night-time drink. However, the victim died from a heart attack. Thus,
White was acquitted of murder, but convicted of attempted murder
because “but for” his actions the victim still would have died.
Defendant’s conduct doesn’t have to be the sole cause of death. A good example of this can
be found in the case of Benge (1846) 2 Car & Kir 230.
Benge was a railway foreman in charge of the railway tracks. One day, he misread the
timetable and as a result a train was derailed, and someone died. Benge then went
on to argue that if others had been doing their jobs properly, the incident would not
have occurred. However, Benge was convicted meaning that the defendant’s conduct
does not have to be the sole cause, they just need to be significant.
2. Legal causation
Is the defendant legally blameworthy?
Example in the case of Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273:
Defendant was driving a horse and cart but did not have control of the reigns.
Subsequently, a child ran out in front of the horse and cart and was killed as a result.
However, the court acquitted the defendant of manslaughter because even though
driving without holding the reigns was negligent, the court accepted that there was
nothing the defendant could have done to prevent the child from running out.
Another example in the case of Hughes [2013] UKSC 56:
The court held that causation must be allied to something that it is blameworthy in a
relevant way.
The defendant was driving his car without a license (crime by itself) and crashed into
someone who was high on drugs and driving on the opposite side of the road; the
other driver was killed. The defendant was charged with causing the death and
driving without a full license. However, the supreme court overturned this
conviction, ruling that the defendant’s actions couldn’t be said to be a blameworthy
cause of death; thus, defendant was not criminally liable.
The question of fact is for the jury to decide; however, the defendant’s actions must be
more than de minimus (minimal).
The language for this test varies: sometimes the word “substantial” or operative cause as in
Rafferty [2007] EWCA Crim 1846. However, the wording was a “significant” cause in Wallace
[2018] EWCA Crim 690.
