LW104- Week3 – Lecture 2 - Actus Reus, Omissions, Causation
Actus reus, omissions:
Creating a dangerous situation
Miller (1983) House of Lords
- D was drunk, fell asleep with a lighted cigarette, and when he woke up discovered a fire. Due to
this, he didn’t do anything to stop the fire. He just moved to another room, was charged and
convicted with arson. He appealed this.
- Structure of offence: criminal damage/arson per S1(1) and (3) Criminal Damage Act 1971
- AR = conduct, destroying or damaging property belonging to another
- MR = intending to destroy or damage or being reckless as to this
- In this case, the defendant = the act of setting the fire was not accompanied by the requisite
men's rea for the offense of arson, his men's (reckless as to damage) occurred at a time when
the positive act had already been accomplished
- Reasoning: the trial judge (recorder) directing the jury in its summing up: conduct was by
omission, duty to act, and a failure to act. Court of appeal: conduct was commission of setting
fire and that the conduct was continuous until the fire was extinguished
- House of lords interpreted this as creating a dangerous situation, the defendant had a duty to
act, and this was not fulfilled there was a failure to act as the defendant left the fire and did not
attempt to put it out or get help
- Legal test- ‘D has done something whereby he has inadvertently created a dangerous situation,
and on becoming aware of that danger, he fails to take steps to avert it’
Miller (HL) - D has a duty to act having created a dangerous situation where he became aware of the
danger he created
Are omissions preferred?
- The House of Lords did not dismiss a continuing act as an option, but it preferred an omission
approach because it was then easier for the jury to understand. In other cases, the courts may
be better placed to consider a continuing act rather than an omission.
Fagan v Metropolitain Police Commissioner (1969) 1 QB 439
- D accidently drove car into foot of police officer, when officer asked him to move, he refused to
do so: he stayed on the foot.
- AR – unlawful application of force
- MR- intend to unlawfully touch or be reckless in this regard
- Problem- the only ‘act’ he did which could form the conduct element for unlawfully applying
force was not accompanied by MR as it was accidental with no intention nor recklessness
- The act was a continuing act – starting with driving onto the foot and continuing thereafter,
once the MR occurred at some point during this continuing act, then guilty
Actus reus, omissions:
Creating a dangerous situation
Miller (1983) House of Lords
- D was drunk, fell asleep with a lighted cigarette, and when he woke up discovered a fire. Due to
this, he didn’t do anything to stop the fire. He just moved to another room, was charged and
convicted with arson. He appealed this.
- Structure of offence: criminal damage/arson per S1(1) and (3) Criminal Damage Act 1971
- AR = conduct, destroying or damaging property belonging to another
- MR = intending to destroy or damage or being reckless as to this
- In this case, the defendant = the act of setting the fire was not accompanied by the requisite
men's rea for the offense of arson, his men's (reckless as to damage) occurred at a time when
the positive act had already been accomplished
- Reasoning: the trial judge (recorder) directing the jury in its summing up: conduct was by
omission, duty to act, and a failure to act. Court of appeal: conduct was commission of setting
fire and that the conduct was continuous until the fire was extinguished
- House of lords interpreted this as creating a dangerous situation, the defendant had a duty to
act, and this was not fulfilled there was a failure to act as the defendant left the fire and did not
attempt to put it out or get help
- Legal test- ‘D has done something whereby he has inadvertently created a dangerous situation,
and on becoming aware of that danger, he fails to take steps to avert it’
Miller (HL) - D has a duty to act having created a dangerous situation where he became aware of the
danger he created
Are omissions preferred?
- The House of Lords did not dismiss a continuing act as an option, but it preferred an omission
approach because it was then easier for the jury to understand. In other cases, the courts may
be better placed to consider a continuing act rather than an omission.
Fagan v Metropolitain Police Commissioner (1969) 1 QB 439
- D accidently drove car into foot of police officer, when officer asked him to move, he refused to
do so: he stayed on the foot.
- AR – unlawful application of force
- MR- intend to unlawfully touch or be reckless in this regard
- Problem- the only ‘act’ he did which could form the conduct element for unlawfully applying
force was not accompanied by MR as it was accidental with no intention nor recklessness
- The act was a continuing act – starting with driving onto the foot and continuing thereafter,
once the MR occurred at some point during this continuing act, then guilty
