REVISION
ACTUS REUS
Principles Overview:
one element that the prosecution needs to prove for criminal liability
we can only talk about if D may be liable, not if they are guilty of the offence
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
Actus Reus - ‘guilty act’
helps us determine what conduct can be held criminally liable
D’s guilty act must cause the criminal harm
the principle of causation
there are no statutes underlying the principle
CAUSATION
REVISION 1
, At the heart of causation, it states we are all responsible for our actions. therefore if the
defendant's free, informed and voluntary act caused harm to V, they’re considered to be
responsible for that harm
it is not possible to have one single test to prove criminal liability, to prove the harm to the victim
and the factor complex, we use 2 parts:
Factual Causation:
must prove the defendant's criminal liability in FACT
‘sin qua non’ the but for test = but for the actions of the defendant, the harm to the victim
wouldn't have happened → it is necessary to establish this so that we can go onto legal causation
White [1910] 2 KB 124 = ‘SINE QUA NON’ TEST
Facts: poison in nighttime drink but death was caused due to heart attack
Held: acquittal for murder = but for his actions the victim would still have died
Benge (1846) 2 Car & Kir 230 = DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THE SOLE CAUSE
Facts: in charge of the removal of railway tracks and because he misread the timetable
= a train was derailed and someone was killed
Held: if other people had done their jobs such as the flagmen to warn the train and paid
attention about the removal of the railway tracks then the death wouldn’t have occurred
= they do not need to be the sole cause but they simply need to be significant
too wide to hold for criminal liability = we need a second test beyond the but for test = if
you can prove the but for the test, you then move onto legal causation.
operates as a hurdle to legal causation and should always be considered first for
criminal liability
Legal Causation:
Whilst factual determines whether the defendant's actions caused the harm, this test proves
whether they are legally blameworthy for that harm
Substantive Cause: D’s acts a significant contribution to the outcome
REVISION 2
, Operating Cause: Still in effect at the time of death, no intervening acts.
Dallaway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273
Facts: D was driving a horse and cart but didn't have control of reigns and a child ran
out in front and was killed = court acquitted manslaughter = although they recognised it
was negligent, they recognised there was nothing that he could've done to prevent the
child from running out and run over
Held: though they were the factual cause of the harm, he was not the legal cause of
harm and he couldn't have done anything to prevent it
Hughes [2013] UKSC 56
Facts: the court held that causation must be allied to something that is blameworthy in a
relevant way = D was driving without insurance or a full license which was a crime in
of itself = crashed into someone who was high on drugs and driving on the wrong side
of the road and the other side of the road
Held: charged for the cause of death and uninsured and having a full license = the SC
overturned this conviction = they said his actions couldn't be the blameworthy cause
of death and the fact he was high on drugs and driving on the wrong side of the road =
he couldn't be found criminally liable for his death
💡 Question of fact
the jury to decide + their actions must be more than ‘de minimus’ = cannot
be a minimal cause for harm to the victim
Rafferty [2007] EWCA Crim 1846 = ‘must be a substantial/operative cause’
D and friends hit the victim but he later ran away, but his friends drowned the victim in
the sea = D’s actions were held to not be an operative cause of death = couldn't have
been found legally as a cause of death but was liable to the first offence of beating up
the V
Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690 = ‘must be a significant cause’
REVISION 3
, Chain of Causation:
💡 Novus actus interveniens
working out whether there is a break in the “chain of causation” = phrase given to link the
defenders actions to the harm to the victim
R v Latif [1996] 2 Cr App R 92 : per lord steyn =
“The general principle is that the free, deliberate and informed
intervention of a second person who intends to explain the situation
created by the first, but is not acting in concert with him is how to relieve
the first act of criminal responsibility” = operative cause of harm to the
victim, not liable to the final harm to the victim = operative cause removed
💡 who breaks the chain:
Act from D
Act of God
Act of the Victim *
Act of Third Party *
Act of the Victim:
Free, voluntary and informed, actions of the victim can break the chain of causation
REVISION 4
ACTUS REUS
Principles Overview:
one element that the prosecution needs to prove for criminal liability
we can only talk about if D may be liable, not if they are guilty of the offence
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
Actus Reus - ‘guilty act’
helps us determine what conduct can be held criminally liable
D’s guilty act must cause the criminal harm
the principle of causation
there are no statutes underlying the principle
CAUSATION
REVISION 1
, At the heart of causation, it states we are all responsible for our actions. therefore if the
defendant's free, informed and voluntary act caused harm to V, they’re considered to be
responsible for that harm
it is not possible to have one single test to prove criminal liability, to prove the harm to the victim
and the factor complex, we use 2 parts:
Factual Causation:
must prove the defendant's criminal liability in FACT
‘sin qua non’ the but for test = but for the actions of the defendant, the harm to the victim
wouldn't have happened → it is necessary to establish this so that we can go onto legal causation
White [1910] 2 KB 124 = ‘SINE QUA NON’ TEST
Facts: poison in nighttime drink but death was caused due to heart attack
Held: acquittal for murder = but for his actions the victim would still have died
Benge (1846) 2 Car & Kir 230 = DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THE SOLE CAUSE
Facts: in charge of the removal of railway tracks and because he misread the timetable
= a train was derailed and someone was killed
Held: if other people had done their jobs such as the flagmen to warn the train and paid
attention about the removal of the railway tracks then the death wouldn’t have occurred
= they do not need to be the sole cause but they simply need to be significant
too wide to hold for criminal liability = we need a second test beyond the but for test = if
you can prove the but for the test, you then move onto legal causation.
operates as a hurdle to legal causation and should always be considered first for
criminal liability
Legal Causation:
Whilst factual determines whether the defendant's actions caused the harm, this test proves
whether they are legally blameworthy for that harm
Substantive Cause: D’s acts a significant contribution to the outcome
REVISION 2
, Operating Cause: Still in effect at the time of death, no intervening acts.
Dallaway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273
Facts: D was driving a horse and cart but didn't have control of reigns and a child ran
out in front and was killed = court acquitted manslaughter = although they recognised it
was negligent, they recognised there was nothing that he could've done to prevent the
child from running out and run over
Held: though they were the factual cause of the harm, he was not the legal cause of
harm and he couldn't have done anything to prevent it
Hughes [2013] UKSC 56
Facts: the court held that causation must be allied to something that is blameworthy in a
relevant way = D was driving without insurance or a full license which was a crime in
of itself = crashed into someone who was high on drugs and driving on the wrong side
of the road and the other side of the road
Held: charged for the cause of death and uninsured and having a full license = the SC
overturned this conviction = they said his actions couldn't be the blameworthy cause
of death and the fact he was high on drugs and driving on the wrong side of the road =
he couldn't be found criminally liable for his death
💡 Question of fact
the jury to decide + their actions must be more than ‘de minimus’ = cannot
be a minimal cause for harm to the victim
Rafferty [2007] EWCA Crim 1846 = ‘must be a substantial/operative cause’
D and friends hit the victim but he later ran away, but his friends drowned the victim in
the sea = D’s actions were held to not be an operative cause of death = couldn't have
been found legally as a cause of death but was liable to the first offence of beating up
the V
Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690 = ‘must be a significant cause’
REVISION 3
, Chain of Causation:
💡 Novus actus interveniens
working out whether there is a break in the “chain of causation” = phrase given to link the
defenders actions to the harm to the victim
R v Latif [1996] 2 Cr App R 92 : per lord steyn =
“The general principle is that the free, deliberate and informed
intervention of a second person who intends to explain the situation
created by the first, but is not acting in concert with him is how to relieve
the first act of criminal responsibility” = operative cause of harm to the
victim, not liable to the final harm to the victim = operative cause removed
💡 who breaks the chain:
Act from D
Act of God
Act of the Victim *
Act of Third Party *
Act of the Victim:
Free, voluntary and informed, actions of the victim can break the chain of causation
REVISION 4
