ACTUS REUS *Identify crime, actus reus + mens rea, causation, any defences?
Cheshire Special relationships: Parent-child, husband-wife, doctor-patient
• If actus reus (guilty act) + mens rea (guilty mind) established = guilty - Shot, required a tracheotomy. But poor medical care caused death. Gibbons and Proctor à Imposes liability in private matters too
• Burden of proof on prosecution to establish elements of offence is beyond reasonable doubt - D = legal cause, only in hospital b/c D’s actions = still substantial + operative cause of death - D failed to provide food to child, died of starvation
*Do not write “D must prove _”, explain what the prosecution must prove to convict - Court: accidents ≠ inevitable - Liable as father-child relationship
• Law Commission: Proposed replacing actus reus w/ ‘external elements’ + mens rea ‘fault Jordan • Not guilty if death was imminent:
elements’ to reflect true meanings - Stabbed. Wound healed, but died from allergic reaction to drugs. Morby
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea - both must coincide - Treatment: ‘palpably wrong’ = broke chain of causation + removed D’s liability - Didn’t call for medical help, believed in power of prayer
Actus reus occurring before mens rea - NOT guilty, medical evidence: still would have died ∴ breach didn’t cause death
Smith
• Actus reus = continuing act - Parker LJ: negligence ‘so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the Voluntary assumption of care
Fagan history’ • People who start providing help then stop = likely to be voluntary assumption of care
- D stopped car on policeman’s foot. Refused to move when he realised. Instan
- Actus reus of assault continued for the whole time the car remained on his foot. à Glanville: legal causation = ‘moral reaction’ to see if result is imputable to D. Most culpable act.
- D took charge of caring for elderly relative, left to starve. Charged w/ manslaughter.
- D then became aware + refused to move ∴ mens rea + actus reus coincided = liable Intervening acts
• Occurs after D’s act + breaks chain of causation. Dangerous situations
• Liable for failure to act after creating a dangerous situation Miller
Miller • Relieves D from liability, if:
- Lord Diplock - ‘within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has created’
- D fell asleep whilst smoking a cigarette. o Overwhelming cause of death AND
- Awoke to a smouldering mattress, but moved to diff room. Fire spread. o Unforeseeable occurrence Evans à Applied Miller principle
- Court: D created dangerous situation that gave rise to a duty to act 1) Victim’s actions - Supplied stepsister with heroin. Victim injected + overdosed, but didn’t call for ambulance.
∴ Actus reus (D’s failure to deal w/ fire) coincided with mens rea (reckless as to • Victim may break chain if reaction to D’s initial act is extreme and unforeseeable - Created dangerous situation by supplying heroin + failed to fix it
damage or destruction of property) Roberts
- D harassed victim + she jumped out of moving car
Supposed corpse cases
Mens rea occurring before actus reus - Court: foreseeable victim would attempt to escape + be injured MENS REA
- Chain of causation only broken if victim’s actions were ‘so daft’ = unforeseeable
• D cannot have intention to kill, if believes they’re already dead
Thabo Meli Kennedy Intention:
- Medical evidence: died from being thrown off a cliff. Upheld conviction. - K gave heroin, victim died. * 1) What was D trying to achieve?
- Court: voluntary decision to inject drugs o Try direct intention to kill, then direct intention to cause GBH?
Church à Series of acts
o If not, try oblique intention + Woollin test, e.g. intended to frighten, but killed
- D attacked woman unconscious, intended to cause GBH (mens rea) • Thin skull rule: D liable for full extent of victim’s injuries even if victim suffers greater harm than
2) Was death an inevitable consequence of achieving his primary purpose? If yes, oblique
- D believed she was dead, pushed body into river where she drowned (actus reus). ‘ordinary’ victim would suffer
intention
- Court: Entire incident on the whole viewed as a ‘series of events’ designed to cause death o ‘Must take victim as you find her’
or GBH à Offence satisfied if AR + MR coincided somewhere during the single transaction Blaue à If D caused death, but not direct/oblique intention = involuntary manslaughter
Le Brun à CAUSATION - Stabbed. Due to religion, refused blood transfusion. Victim would survive if didn’t refuse. Direct intention
- Hit woman, fell unconscious. Dragged inside to avoid detection but hit her head = died - D convicted of manslaughter Mohan: D acts deliberately, wanting the outcome
- Question of CAUSATION, not a series of acts - Thin-skull rule applies to physical + mental characteristics of victim
Oblique intention
- Original act = legal cause • D foresees the result, but wasn’t desired intention
2) Third parties
Causation 1. How significant was their contribution to the death? - E.g. D wants to destroy plane package to get insurance = liable for murder b/c oblique intent
• Chain of causation: link between D’s initial act to the prohibited consequence that occurred - E.g. D had minor burns, but ambulance drove into river + died. D’s initial injury = Hyam
Factual causation insignificant + unforeseeable. - Put petrol bomb through letterbox of lover’s wife. Intention: scare wife, not kill
• Consequence would not have occurred w/o D’s actions 2. Were the actions foreseeable? - Convicted b/c foresaw her death as highly probable (not certain)
• ‘But for’ test: Whether victim would die ‘but for’ D’s conduct? If yes = D didn’t cause death. à Highly probable prohibited outcome would result from D achieving his primary purpose
Empress Cars
Benge - 3rd party opened an unlocked diesel tap ∴ caused pollution Hancock and Shankland
- But for his failure to check the timetable, someone died on the track. - Court: DIDN’T break chain b/c foreseeable - During miner’s strike, dropped concrete on road to stop miners going to work, but died.
• Lord Bingham: not blameworthy ‘if one genuinely does not perceive the risk’ à Policy factors: Engaged in a potentially polluting activity ∴ should take all steps to prevent it à ↑ Probability of consequence, more likely consequence was foreseen
• D’s wrongful act did not cause the consequence: 3) Naturally occurring events Woollin
White - E.g. D punches X unconscious, wave kills X = unforeseeable - CoA: ‘substantial risk’ test (overlapped w/ recklessness)
- D wanted to kill mother, poisoned her drink. But died of natural causes. - Unconscious X left below tide line + drowns when tide comes in = foreseeable ≠ break chain - HoL: Appropriate test for oblique intention created in Nedrick: Jury may find D intended
- D’s mother would have died anyway = NOT factual cause an outcome if it was virtually certain consequence of his actions + he realised that
Exceptions to Act requirement
Dalloway Situational liability: In a prohibited situation Medical
- Child ran in front of cart before driver could stop Larsonneur Adams
- Court: not responsible, child still would die if he had held the reigns - Immigration order to leave UK, set sail for Ireland but deported back to England involuntarily - Doctor gave large dose of painkillers to patient. Intention: relieve pain, not kill. NOT GUILTY.
- Convicted b/c ‘illegal alien’ VS.
• D doesn’t need to initiate process, but accelerates it:
à Crime w/o actus reus, but ‘circumstances’ count as actus reus Cox
Dyson
- Gave drugs at her request to put her out of misery
- Child suffered from meningitis, father beat him up. Possessional offences - GUILTY: intention to kill, motive ≠ relevant
- Convicted of manslaughter b/c accelerated death • Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: possess drugs = liable
Warner Airedale v Bland
• Doesn’t have to be a direct cause:
- Had 2 boxes, thought it was perfume. 1 had cannabis. - Vegetative state, survival relied on life support machine. Unhooking = same as not having it
Mitchell
- Pushed person in post office queue + fell over old lady - Liable, unless put in D’s possession w/o knowledge / significantly diff to what thought it was Case of double effect
Omission consistent w/ autonomy Conjoined Twins [2000]
Legal causation: Culpability, responsibility, foreseeability (blameworthy)
- No liability for omissions. Exceptions: duty to act à Ashworth: should extend to duty of easy rescue? - Doctors had to operate to save the stronger twin, but other would die
• May be legal, even if not immediate cause of death:
- Court: doctor had NO intention to kill
Pagett Statutory duty
- D used girlfriend as a shield + fired at police. Police shot back, missed + killed girlfriend - S170 Road Traffic Act 1988: duty upon driver involved in accident to report to police
- D = legal cause, as he set the chain of events in motion which led to death Contractual duty
∴ foreseeable police would return fire Pittwood à Imposes liability b/c public endangered
- Goff LJ: D’s act ≠ need to be main cause but ‘contributed significantly to the result’ - D failed to close gates at level crossing, victim died by train
• Cato: ‘more than a minimal cause of death’ - Liable for consequences of failing to perform contractual duties
Cheshire Special relationships: Parent-child, husband-wife, doctor-patient
• If actus reus (guilty act) + mens rea (guilty mind) established = guilty - Shot, required a tracheotomy. But poor medical care caused death. Gibbons and Proctor à Imposes liability in private matters too
• Burden of proof on prosecution to establish elements of offence is beyond reasonable doubt - D = legal cause, only in hospital b/c D’s actions = still substantial + operative cause of death - D failed to provide food to child, died of starvation
*Do not write “D must prove _”, explain what the prosecution must prove to convict - Court: accidents ≠ inevitable - Liable as father-child relationship
• Law Commission: Proposed replacing actus reus w/ ‘external elements’ + mens rea ‘fault Jordan • Not guilty if death was imminent:
elements’ to reflect true meanings - Stabbed. Wound healed, but died from allergic reaction to drugs. Morby
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea - both must coincide - Treatment: ‘palpably wrong’ = broke chain of causation + removed D’s liability - Didn’t call for medical help, believed in power of prayer
Actus reus occurring before mens rea - NOT guilty, medical evidence: still would have died ∴ breach didn’t cause death
Smith
• Actus reus = continuing act - Parker LJ: negligence ‘so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the Voluntary assumption of care
Fagan history’ • People who start providing help then stop = likely to be voluntary assumption of care
- D stopped car on policeman’s foot. Refused to move when he realised. Instan
- Actus reus of assault continued for the whole time the car remained on his foot. à Glanville: legal causation = ‘moral reaction’ to see if result is imputable to D. Most culpable act.
- D took charge of caring for elderly relative, left to starve. Charged w/ manslaughter.
- D then became aware + refused to move ∴ mens rea + actus reus coincided = liable Intervening acts
• Occurs after D’s act + breaks chain of causation. Dangerous situations
• Liable for failure to act after creating a dangerous situation Miller
Miller • Relieves D from liability, if:
- Lord Diplock - ‘within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has created’
- D fell asleep whilst smoking a cigarette. o Overwhelming cause of death AND
- Awoke to a smouldering mattress, but moved to diff room. Fire spread. o Unforeseeable occurrence Evans à Applied Miller principle
- Court: D created dangerous situation that gave rise to a duty to act 1) Victim’s actions - Supplied stepsister with heroin. Victim injected + overdosed, but didn’t call for ambulance.
∴ Actus reus (D’s failure to deal w/ fire) coincided with mens rea (reckless as to • Victim may break chain if reaction to D’s initial act is extreme and unforeseeable - Created dangerous situation by supplying heroin + failed to fix it
damage or destruction of property) Roberts
- D harassed victim + she jumped out of moving car
Supposed corpse cases
Mens rea occurring before actus reus - Court: foreseeable victim would attempt to escape + be injured MENS REA
- Chain of causation only broken if victim’s actions were ‘so daft’ = unforeseeable
• D cannot have intention to kill, if believes they’re already dead
Thabo Meli Kennedy Intention:
- Medical evidence: died from being thrown off a cliff. Upheld conviction. - K gave heroin, victim died. * 1) What was D trying to achieve?
- Court: voluntary decision to inject drugs o Try direct intention to kill, then direct intention to cause GBH?
Church à Series of acts
o If not, try oblique intention + Woollin test, e.g. intended to frighten, but killed
- D attacked woman unconscious, intended to cause GBH (mens rea) • Thin skull rule: D liable for full extent of victim’s injuries even if victim suffers greater harm than
2) Was death an inevitable consequence of achieving his primary purpose? If yes, oblique
- D believed she was dead, pushed body into river where she drowned (actus reus). ‘ordinary’ victim would suffer
intention
- Court: Entire incident on the whole viewed as a ‘series of events’ designed to cause death o ‘Must take victim as you find her’
or GBH à Offence satisfied if AR + MR coincided somewhere during the single transaction Blaue à If D caused death, but not direct/oblique intention = involuntary manslaughter
Le Brun à CAUSATION - Stabbed. Due to religion, refused blood transfusion. Victim would survive if didn’t refuse. Direct intention
- Hit woman, fell unconscious. Dragged inside to avoid detection but hit her head = died - D convicted of manslaughter Mohan: D acts deliberately, wanting the outcome
- Question of CAUSATION, not a series of acts - Thin-skull rule applies to physical + mental characteristics of victim
Oblique intention
- Original act = legal cause • D foresees the result, but wasn’t desired intention
2) Third parties
Causation 1. How significant was their contribution to the death? - E.g. D wants to destroy plane package to get insurance = liable for murder b/c oblique intent
• Chain of causation: link between D’s initial act to the prohibited consequence that occurred - E.g. D had minor burns, but ambulance drove into river + died. D’s initial injury = Hyam
Factual causation insignificant + unforeseeable. - Put petrol bomb through letterbox of lover’s wife. Intention: scare wife, not kill
• Consequence would not have occurred w/o D’s actions 2. Were the actions foreseeable? - Convicted b/c foresaw her death as highly probable (not certain)
• ‘But for’ test: Whether victim would die ‘but for’ D’s conduct? If yes = D didn’t cause death. à Highly probable prohibited outcome would result from D achieving his primary purpose
Empress Cars
Benge - 3rd party opened an unlocked diesel tap ∴ caused pollution Hancock and Shankland
- But for his failure to check the timetable, someone died on the track. - Court: DIDN’T break chain b/c foreseeable - During miner’s strike, dropped concrete on road to stop miners going to work, but died.
• Lord Bingham: not blameworthy ‘if one genuinely does not perceive the risk’ à Policy factors: Engaged in a potentially polluting activity ∴ should take all steps to prevent it à ↑ Probability of consequence, more likely consequence was foreseen
• D’s wrongful act did not cause the consequence: 3) Naturally occurring events Woollin
White - E.g. D punches X unconscious, wave kills X = unforeseeable - CoA: ‘substantial risk’ test (overlapped w/ recklessness)
- D wanted to kill mother, poisoned her drink. But died of natural causes. - Unconscious X left below tide line + drowns when tide comes in = foreseeable ≠ break chain - HoL: Appropriate test for oblique intention created in Nedrick: Jury may find D intended
- D’s mother would have died anyway = NOT factual cause an outcome if it was virtually certain consequence of his actions + he realised that
Exceptions to Act requirement
Dalloway Situational liability: In a prohibited situation Medical
- Child ran in front of cart before driver could stop Larsonneur Adams
- Court: not responsible, child still would die if he had held the reigns - Immigration order to leave UK, set sail for Ireland but deported back to England involuntarily - Doctor gave large dose of painkillers to patient. Intention: relieve pain, not kill. NOT GUILTY.
- Convicted b/c ‘illegal alien’ VS.
• D doesn’t need to initiate process, but accelerates it:
à Crime w/o actus reus, but ‘circumstances’ count as actus reus Cox
Dyson
- Gave drugs at her request to put her out of misery
- Child suffered from meningitis, father beat him up. Possessional offences - GUILTY: intention to kill, motive ≠ relevant
- Convicted of manslaughter b/c accelerated death • Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: possess drugs = liable
Warner Airedale v Bland
• Doesn’t have to be a direct cause:
- Had 2 boxes, thought it was perfume. 1 had cannabis. - Vegetative state, survival relied on life support machine. Unhooking = same as not having it
Mitchell
- Pushed person in post office queue + fell over old lady - Liable, unless put in D’s possession w/o knowledge / significantly diff to what thought it was Case of double effect
Omission consistent w/ autonomy Conjoined Twins [2000]
Legal causation: Culpability, responsibility, foreseeability (blameworthy)
- No liability for omissions. Exceptions: duty to act à Ashworth: should extend to duty of easy rescue? - Doctors had to operate to save the stronger twin, but other would die
• May be legal, even if not immediate cause of death:
- Court: doctor had NO intention to kill
Pagett Statutory duty
- D used girlfriend as a shield + fired at police. Police shot back, missed + killed girlfriend - S170 Road Traffic Act 1988: duty upon driver involved in accident to report to police
- D = legal cause, as he set the chain of events in motion which led to death Contractual duty
∴ foreseeable police would return fire Pittwood à Imposes liability b/c public endangered
- Goff LJ: D’s act ≠ need to be main cause but ‘contributed significantly to the result’ - D failed to close gates at level crossing, victim died by train
• Cato: ‘more than a minimal cause of death’ - Liable for consequences of failing to perform contractual duties
