Actus Reas
Topic Notes
Actus Reas action that is part of a crime, the criminal act that is culpable
Common law: definition found in decision of court
Statutory crime: definition found in statues (theft act )
i.e, D unlawfully cause the death of a human being under the queens peace
Both actus reas and mens rea are required to established a crime, Absence of a valid defence
Conduct crime: type of action is prohibited or criminalised, regardless of the consequences examples of this
could be perjury, wounding and abduction
Result crime: the law is interested only in the result and not in the conduct bringing about the result i.e,
murder, manslaughter wounding …
State of affair: definition of actus reus is concerned neither with conduct nor consequences. Looking state of
affair and whether we want to prohibit it
Required Actus reus (act) is always required i.e, Deller
Voluntary Conduct must be voluntary (cases of involuntariness could include D is unconscious thought exception is
drinking)
Hill v Baxter: driver driving home tired, fall asleep and drove over a party of soldiers – conduct sat below
conduct of autonomies but held culpable as he could have taken a break
Automatism D claim for lack of voluntariness is known as Automatism. Commonly arises in driving cases and diabetic
patient.
Case: Broom v Perkin: this defence was not accepted
Causation has Factual causation: but for test (but for the D actions would the result have occurred
to be White:
established Legal causation: various legal principles
The culpable Cato: deminis principle accused must have produced more than a trivial acceleration of the death of victim
act must be a Kimsey:
more than Williams:
minimal Pagett: accused act does not need to be the only or main cause of victim death but act must be enough to
cause of the significantly contributed to the death
consequence Warburton and Hubbersty: did the acts for which the def is responsible significantly contribute to the victim’s
death
Accused must Blaue: D stabbed a girl leading to serious blood loss, the girl a Jehovah witness refused a blood transfusion
take the due to religious belief leading to death. D argued C action broke the chain of causation however court held
victim as he conviction must be affirmed and found the stabbing caused the death and lack of blood transfusion did not
finds him break the chain of causation between the D and victim
‘Thin skull’ Dear: victim was attacked and suffered serious wound and due to mental health condition reopen the wounds
rule’ and died. D argue not his action that cause the death but victim actions. Court held D conduct was a significant
cause of death (Pagett) (mental condition)
McKechnie: The D actions need not be the scientific or medical cause of the result
The result need not be the direct consequence of the D physical actions
Intervening Robert: victim riding in car with D and he was telling victim of his sexual defiant act and attempted to rape the
act: action of victim. Victim scared jumped out of the car . D argued her action contributed to her harm. Court held: this are
the victim action reasonable foreseen as a result of D action – no chain of causation broken
Daley: whether the victim was in fear of being hurt, caused them to try and escape, which whiled doing so led
D want to to harm/death, fear was reasonable
argue victim William and Davis: someone jumped out of the car due to fear , jury need to consider a) whether reaction of
contributed victim was in reasonable range of responses
to their own Lewis [2010] EWCA Crim 151: If D was either unaware that he was under attack or if his flight was of his own
harm volition and unrelated to any act of the appellants, or not reasonably foreseeable, then the appellant was
Topic Notes
Actus Reas action that is part of a crime, the criminal act that is culpable
Common law: definition found in decision of court
Statutory crime: definition found in statues (theft act )
i.e, D unlawfully cause the death of a human being under the queens peace
Both actus reas and mens rea are required to established a crime, Absence of a valid defence
Conduct crime: type of action is prohibited or criminalised, regardless of the consequences examples of this
could be perjury, wounding and abduction
Result crime: the law is interested only in the result and not in the conduct bringing about the result i.e,
murder, manslaughter wounding …
State of affair: definition of actus reus is concerned neither with conduct nor consequences. Looking state of
affair and whether we want to prohibit it
Required Actus reus (act) is always required i.e, Deller
Voluntary Conduct must be voluntary (cases of involuntariness could include D is unconscious thought exception is
drinking)
Hill v Baxter: driver driving home tired, fall asleep and drove over a party of soldiers – conduct sat below
conduct of autonomies but held culpable as he could have taken a break
Automatism D claim for lack of voluntariness is known as Automatism. Commonly arises in driving cases and diabetic
patient.
Case: Broom v Perkin: this defence was not accepted
Causation has Factual causation: but for test (but for the D actions would the result have occurred
to be White:
established Legal causation: various legal principles
The culpable Cato: deminis principle accused must have produced more than a trivial acceleration of the death of victim
act must be a Kimsey:
more than Williams:
minimal Pagett: accused act does not need to be the only or main cause of victim death but act must be enough to
cause of the significantly contributed to the death
consequence Warburton and Hubbersty: did the acts for which the def is responsible significantly contribute to the victim’s
death
Accused must Blaue: D stabbed a girl leading to serious blood loss, the girl a Jehovah witness refused a blood transfusion
take the due to religious belief leading to death. D argued C action broke the chain of causation however court held
victim as he conviction must be affirmed and found the stabbing caused the death and lack of blood transfusion did not
finds him break the chain of causation between the D and victim
‘Thin skull’ Dear: victim was attacked and suffered serious wound and due to mental health condition reopen the wounds
rule’ and died. D argue not his action that cause the death but victim actions. Court held D conduct was a significant
cause of death (Pagett) (mental condition)
McKechnie: The D actions need not be the scientific or medical cause of the result
The result need not be the direct consequence of the D physical actions
Intervening Robert: victim riding in car with D and he was telling victim of his sexual defiant act and attempted to rape the
act: action of victim. Victim scared jumped out of the car . D argued her action contributed to her harm. Court held: this are
the victim action reasonable foreseen as a result of D action – no chain of causation broken
Daley: whether the victim was in fear of being hurt, caused them to try and escape, which whiled doing so led
D want to to harm/death, fear was reasonable
argue victim William and Davis: someone jumped out of the car due to fear , jury need to consider a) whether reaction of
contributed victim was in reasonable range of responses
to their own Lewis [2010] EWCA Crim 151: If D was either unaware that he was under attack or if his flight was of his own
harm volition and unrelated to any act of the appellants, or not reasonably foreseeable, then the appellant was
