ACTUS REUS : CAUSATION
The actus reus of the offence is the destruction or damage of property which belongs to
somebody other than the defendant. It is the result of the defendant’s actions that satisfy
the actus reus rather than the actions themselves, with the additional circumstance be-
ing that the property destroyed or damaged belongs to somebody other than the defen-
dant. In other words, all three elements/types of actus reus are included.
• Conduct - some action that results in damage to property;
• Circumstance - the property belongs to somebody other than the defendant;
• Result - the property is damaged or destroyed.
(EXAMPLE)
If this offence is contrasted with the offence of rape, section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act
2003 provides that:
1. A person (A) commits an offence if -
1. he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with
his penis,
2. B does not consent to the penetration, and
3. A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
All that is required for the actus reus to be satisfied in this context, is that the penetra-
tion with the penis occurred, the victim did not consent and the defendant. It is, there-
fore, the conduct of the defendant that satisfies the actus reus, no particular result is
necessary.
CAUSATION :
(Summary) refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendant's conduct (or omission)
caused the harm or damage. Causation must be established in all result crimes.
Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation.
Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In most
instances, where there exist no complicating factors, factual causation on its own will
suffice to establish causation. However, in some circumstances, it will also be necessary
to consider legal causation. Under legal causation the result must be caused by a
culpable act, there is no requirement that the act of the defendant was the only cause,
there must be no novus actus interveniens and the defendant must take his victim as
he finds him (thin skull rule).
(FACTUAL CAUSATION) - causation in fact
(Did the result come about because of D’s conduct?)
established by applying the 'but for' test. This asks, 'but for the actions of the defendant,
would the result have occurred?' If yes, the result would have occurred in any event, the
defendant is not liable. If the answer is no, the defendant is liable as it can be said that
their action was a factual cause of the result.
(R V WHITE 1910)
according to which the defendant could not be convicted unless it could be shown that
‘but for’ his actions the victim would not have died. On the facts of this case, the test was
not met, therefore the defendant could not be convicted of murder.
- established the 'but for' test. Ie would the result have occurred but for the actions of
the defendant? If the answer is yes the defendant is not liable.
(R V MORBY 1882) It was proved that proper medical aid and attendance might have
saved or prolonged the child’s life, and would have increased its chances of recovery, but
that it might have been of no avail: and there was no positive evidence that the death
was caused or accelerated by the neglect to provide medical aid or attendance: Held un-
der the above circumstances the conviction could not be sustained.
1
The actus reus of the offence is the destruction or damage of property which belongs to
somebody other than the defendant. It is the result of the defendant’s actions that satisfy
the actus reus rather than the actions themselves, with the additional circumstance be-
ing that the property destroyed or damaged belongs to somebody other than the defen-
dant. In other words, all three elements/types of actus reus are included.
• Conduct - some action that results in damage to property;
• Circumstance - the property belongs to somebody other than the defendant;
• Result - the property is damaged or destroyed.
(EXAMPLE)
If this offence is contrasted with the offence of rape, section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act
2003 provides that:
1. A person (A) commits an offence if -
1. he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with
his penis,
2. B does not consent to the penetration, and
3. A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
All that is required for the actus reus to be satisfied in this context, is that the penetra-
tion with the penis occurred, the victim did not consent and the defendant. It is, there-
fore, the conduct of the defendant that satisfies the actus reus, no particular result is
necessary.
CAUSATION :
(Summary) refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendant's conduct (or omission)
caused the harm or damage. Causation must be established in all result crimes.
Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation.
Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In most
instances, where there exist no complicating factors, factual causation on its own will
suffice to establish causation. However, in some circumstances, it will also be necessary
to consider legal causation. Under legal causation the result must be caused by a
culpable act, there is no requirement that the act of the defendant was the only cause,
there must be no novus actus interveniens and the defendant must take his victim as
he finds him (thin skull rule).
(FACTUAL CAUSATION) - causation in fact
(Did the result come about because of D’s conduct?)
established by applying the 'but for' test. This asks, 'but for the actions of the defendant,
would the result have occurred?' If yes, the result would have occurred in any event, the
defendant is not liable. If the answer is no, the defendant is liable as it can be said that
their action was a factual cause of the result.
(R V WHITE 1910)
according to which the defendant could not be convicted unless it could be shown that
‘but for’ his actions the victim would not have died. On the facts of this case, the test was
not met, therefore the defendant could not be convicted of murder.
- established the 'but for' test. Ie would the result have occurred but for the actions of
the defendant? If the answer is yes the defendant is not liable.
(R V MORBY 1882) It was proved that proper medical aid and attendance might have
saved or prolonged the child’s life, and would have increased its chances of recovery, but
that it might have been of no avail: and there was no positive evidence that the death
was caused or accelerated by the neglect to provide medical aid or attendance: Held un-
der the above circumstances the conviction could not be sustained.
1
