CRIMINAL LAW SEMINAR NOTES
ACTUS REUS
Actus Reus
1. Should the criminal law punish omissions? If so, does the law always draw the
correct lines about when to do so?
Yes because encourages people to follow duties, encourages moral society BUT shouldn't need the
law to do this
• No general duty to act positively for the benefit of someone else - good because it doesn't put
a burden on human beings as people could be criminalised for not being caring individuals
• Commission by omission - commit crime without acting (eg negligence) with following
situations:
Special relationships - (R v Evans 2009 they didn’t do anything and court of appeal said they should
have taken reasonable steps to save the sister, R v Downes where parent didn’t call doctor for
unwell child so duty of care)
Assumption of responsibility (duty of care) -family - R v Instan 1893 woman contracts gangrene
and couldn’t move when she could before and the woman did not get her medical help or give her
food so she died. Stoner v Dobson assumed responsibility stood even when carers had learning
difficulties when caring for an anorexic person, they were not officially looking after her (parents
fault for letting child drown in water as its their duty) -
Responsibility under contract - R v Pittwood had responsibility to close the gate which made him
liable and train driver or police not protecting someone being assaulted, strong evidence of
assumption of responsibility
Responsibility under statute - eg stop after RTA, health and safety, wilfully neglecting child/spouse, R
v Lowe failure to call ambulance for 9 week old child and being breathalysed when requested by
constable
Where defendant creates a dangerous situation - R v Miller 1983 - lit cigarette, fell asleep, mattress
on fire and he didn't put it out. When he lit cigarette he did not have mens rea but this came into
fruition when he left the room but because they were not at the same time they had problems
finding criminal liability.
Law enforcement - police officer etc
Omissions Liability (all 3 needed to satisfy conduct element of offence)- offence must be capable of
commission by omission, D must have legally recognised duty to act and have unreasonably failed to
act on it
Liability for acts of other people
• Goes against autonomy principle
• Vicarious liability - employer can be responsible for criminal act of employee
• Innocent agency (third party in casual chain is tricked or lacks rationality then the person who
causes them to act illegally takes responsibility)
• D offers P money to kill V, so D is responsible for P's actions by giving him an effective reason
for bringing crime about (rationalises criminal liability of certain accomplishes)
2. Victor is an elderly man of 82. He is at home one morning when David, a burglar
, enters his house. David punches Victor, who falls to the floor, unconscious. Victor
regains consciousness two hours later, and stands up. However, he is still dazed, and
falls against a cupboard, cutting his head and knocking himself out.
A day later, Victor’s home help, Angela, who is employed by the local authority,
arrives. She had been scheduled to visit Victor the day before, however as it was
during the period of the half term holidays and she could find no-one to look after
her young children. Seeing Victor, she calls an ambulance. He is taken into hospital,
but not seen for six hours, owing to a staff shortage. He dies of the combined effects
of blood loss and dehydration.
Who has caused Victor’s death in law?
David - no because chain of causation has been broken by negligent medical treatment, result crime,
wasn't necessarily going to die if Victor hadn't committed an act of god and stood up voluntarily
which caused him to cut his head when he died of blood loss, BUT 'but for' if he wasn't involved and
with 'rational expectations' theory he should have known that by leaving victor he woud die
Angela - R v instan 1893 woman contracts gangrene and couldn’t move when she could before and
the woman did not get her medical help or give her food so she died. Stoner v Dobson assumed
responsibility stood even when carers had learning difficulties when caring for an anorexic person.
(is Angela's duty of care for her children more important than her duty of care for victor?)
Doctors - R v Smith 'if second cause is so overwhelming as to make original wound merely part of
the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound', Per Lord Parker CJ. R v
Jordan 1956 40 Cr App R152, 'palpably wrong medical treatment breaks chain of causation' - are
long waiting times 'palpably wrong'?? Not good for society to punish doctors so there is more wiggle
room but if they wrongly administer a drug then its more realistic to hold them liable. Invluntary acts
because they don’t intend not to have time for the patients
Mens Reas
3. Critically evaluate the test for intention set out in Woollin.
Should intention be equated with foresight of virtual certainty?
Negative - vague and language used
Positive -
“Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the
jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel
sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen
intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such
was the case.”
• Oblique - defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result knowing
the consequence of actions will also bring about another result (bombing a plane that you
know your wife is on makes u no less culpable of killing passengers because he knew they'd
die)
• Subjective test - concerned with defendant perspective and whether a normal person would
foresee degree of probability of result occurring from defendants actions
• The result is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's act, and
• The actor knows that it is a virtually certain consequence
• THEN the jury must find that defendant intended intended the consequence
ACTUS REUS
Actus Reus
1. Should the criminal law punish omissions? If so, does the law always draw the
correct lines about when to do so?
Yes because encourages people to follow duties, encourages moral society BUT shouldn't need the
law to do this
• No general duty to act positively for the benefit of someone else - good because it doesn't put
a burden on human beings as people could be criminalised for not being caring individuals
• Commission by omission - commit crime without acting (eg negligence) with following
situations:
Special relationships - (R v Evans 2009 they didn’t do anything and court of appeal said they should
have taken reasonable steps to save the sister, R v Downes where parent didn’t call doctor for
unwell child so duty of care)
Assumption of responsibility (duty of care) -family - R v Instan 1893 woman contracts gangrene
and couldn’t move when she could before and the woman did not get her medical help or give her
food so she died. Stoner v Dobson assumed responsibility stood even when carers had learning
difficulties when caring for an anorexic person, they were not officially looking after her (parents
fault for letting child drown in water as its their duty) -
Responsibility under contract - R v Pittwood had responsibility to close the gate which made him
liable and train driver or police not protecting someone being assaulted, strong evidence of
assumption of responsibility
Responsibility under statute - eg stop after RTA, health and safety, wilfully neglecting child/spouse, R
v Lowe failure to call ambulance for 9 week old child and being breathalysed when requested by
constable
Where defendant creates a dangerous situation - R v Miller 1983 - lit cigarette, fell asleep, mattress
on fire and he didn't put it out. When he lit cigarette he did not have mens rea but this came into
fruition when he left the room but because they were not at the same time they had problems
finding criminal liability.
Law enforcement - police officer etc
Omissions Liability (all 3 needed to satisfy conduct element of offence)- offence must be capable of
commission by omission, D must have legally recognised duty to act and have unreasonably failed to
act on it
Liability for acts of other people
• Goes against autonomy principle
• Vicarious liability - employer can be responsible for criminal act of employee
• Innocent agency (third party in casual chain is tricked or lacks rationality then the person who
causes them to act illegally takes responsibility)
• D offers P money to kill V, so D is responsible for P's actions by giving him an effective reason
for bringing crime about (rationalises criminal liability of certain accomplishes)
2. Victor is an elderly man of 82. He is at home one morning when David, a burglar
, enters his house. David punches Victor, who falls to the floor, unconscious. Victor
regains consciousness two hours later, and stands up. However, he is still dazed, and
falls against a cupboard, cutting his head and knocking himself out.
A day later, Victor’s home help, Angela, who is employed by the local authority,
arrives. She had been scheduled to visit Victor the day before, however as it was
during the period of the half term holidays and she could find no-one to look after
her young children. Seeing Victor, she calls an ambulance. He is taken into hospital,
but not seen for six hours, owing to a staff shortage. He dies of the combined effects
of blood loss and dehydration.
Who has caused Victor’s death in law?
David - no because chain of causation has been broken by negligent medical treatment, result crime,
wasn't necessarily going to die if Victor hadn't committed an act of god and stood up voluntarily
which caused him to cut his head when he died of blood loss, BUT 'but for' if he wasn't involved and
with 'rational expectations' theory he should have known that by leaving victor he woud die
Angela - R v instan 1893 woman contracts gangrene and couldn’t move when she could before and
the woman did not get her medical help or give her food so she died. Stoner v Dobson assumed
responsibility stood even when carers had learning difficulties when caring for an anorexic person.
(is Angela's duty of care for her children more important than her duty of care for victor?)
Doctors - R v Smith 'if second cause is so overwhelming as to make original wound merely part of
the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound', Per Lord Parker CJ. R v
Jordan 1956 40 Cr App R152, 'palpably wrong medical treatment breaks chain of causation' - are
long waiting times 'palpably wrong'?? Not good for society to punish doctors so there is more wiggle
room but if they wrongly administer a drug then its more realistic to hold them liable. Invluntary acts
because they don’t intend not to have time for the patients
Mens Reas
3. Critically evaluate the test for intention set out in Woollin.
Should intention be equated with foresight of virtual certainty?
Negative - vague and language used
Positive -
“Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the
jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel
sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen
intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such
was the case.”
• Oblique - defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result knowing
the consequence of actions will also bring about another result (bombing a plane that you
know your wife is on makes u no less culpable of killing passengers because he knew they'd
die)
• Subjective test - concerned with defendant perspective and whether a normal person would
foresee degree of probability of result occurring from defendants actions
• The result is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's act, and
• The actor knows that it is a virtually certain consequence
• THEN the jury must find that defendant intended intended the consequence
