Criminal Law Topic 3: Actus reus

The actus reus of a crime may involve three elements1. Proof that the defendant did a particular act2. Proof that the act caused a particular result3. Proof that the act or result occurred in certain circumstances

Omission

The general rule is that a person is only guilty of a crime when he fails to act under a duty. - R v. Ahmad [1977]Similar to Stovin v Wise, failure to act is not an act.

There are some circumstances that D is under a duty to act1. Statutory duty: eg. Road Traffic Act 19882. Duties of law enforcement

R v. Dytham [1979]: Police officer failed to protect citizens when he was being kicked to death

3. Contractual duties: R v. Pittwood [1902]: failed to close the gate, causing a manslaughter by traffic collision

4. Assumed duties:People who voluntary assumed responsibility would under a duty to help.Special relationship arise automatically: a parent. However spouses are unclear.

Some cases R v. Evans (Gemma) [2009]: heroin, sister held liable in providing drugs??? Lewis v. CPS [2002]: young man left his friend asleep and intoxicated in a car.

Friendship alone is insufficient. R v Stone and R v Dobinson [1977]: Lane LJ held when Stone and Dobinson

voluntarily assumed responsibility, they are liable – controversial decision as low capacity of deaf blind low B Stone cum ineffectual Dobinson)

Tuck v Robson [1970]/ DuCros v Lambourne [1907]: fail to stop drinking, causing a crime.

Fagan v Metropolitain Police Commissionner [1969]: commit AR of battery R v. Miller [1983]: creation of danger R v Singh(Gurphal) [1999]: landlord and agent held responsible of

manslaughter when tenant complained gas fire but failed to do so. R (Jenkins) v HM Coroner for Portsmouth [1977]: failed to see doctor, friends

respected the decision and they held not liable. R v. Speck: failure to remove gentials: held as act, not omission Airedale NHS Trust v Bland: seek court declaration of discontinuation of all

life sustaining treatment

Causation 1. But for causation

“But for causation”: the defendant act is but for cause of a result, of but for the defendant’s act, the result wouldn’t have occurred.

R v. Dyson [1908]: But for Dyson not injuried him, V would not have meningitis.R v. White [1910]: Poison unrelated to death of V anyway

It must be substantial (Cheshire [1991]). In Hennigan [1971], judge direct juries if lower than 1/5 of blame D is not guilty. It also must be operating cause of the result. Not novus actus intervendi. R v. Rafferty [2007]: Taylor and Thomas drown D and R just hit. Ts held responsible

Novus actus“Novus actus interveniens” is a free voluntary act of third party which renders the original acts no longer a substantial and operating cause of the result.

R v. Kennedy [2007]The principle confirmed is that B’s act has to be a free, voluntary and informed ct and it renders A’s act no longer a substantial and operating cause.

Wise v Dunning [1902]Preacher says anti-Catholic speech and cause violence. Violence was instinctive reaction of audience – they are truly not voluntary – albeit criticised by court.

R v Gnango Kill passerby: diverse opinions of court.

R v. Pagett [1983]:Defendant kidnap her girlfriend. Police accidentally killed her girlfriend. Not novus actus because it is not free nor voluntary or informed.

R v Jordan [1956]D stab V and V taken to hospital and doctor killed V by using allegoric drug and CA held that D is not the substantial cause. It has been exceptional: very rare that medical treatment held as novus actus.R v. Cheshire [1991]Cheshire shot Jefery after argument. V was taken to hospital and die after two month because of the narrowing of windpipe after a necessitated tracheotomy ensued by the shot.

Acts of the victim himself breaking the chain of causationR v. Roberts: after club, indecent suggestions, jump out of car and thereafter convicted against OATA s 47. The test in Roberts to see if the reaction is reasonable. R v. Blaue: D stab V, piercing her lung. V refused to have blood transfusion, which she claimed it contrary to her belief.

Blaue: thin skull rule? Roberts: whether it is reasonably foreseeable.

Blaue decision was in effect an omission but by contrast Roberts is an act. It tends to suggest an omission would not break the chain of causation by the victim. Blaue may be a special case as it talks about relgion and Blaue and Roberts test may have no conflict.

Thin Skull ruleR v. Hayward [1908]beat wife, wife weak heart and die. – take the victim as it wouldR v. McKechnnie [1992]Owing to medical treatment of V, no ulcer and die.

Acts of GodR v Gowans [2003]:D attacked V, V in coma and caught another infection and die.

CaseActsR v White [1910] Poison Mum, dead anywayBut for test for factual causationR v Cheshire [1991] : D shot V in the leg and stomach, necessitating hospital treatment. V suffered complication followed by bad medical treatmentlegal causation – it must be substantial causeR v Pagett [1983]: To avoid arrest, D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield and fired armed police. Kill the girl D was a liableNeed not be sole or main cause provided it is a cause or even main cause, death provided it is a cause in that it contributed significantly to thatR v Jordan [1956]: D stabbed V who was taken to hospital. The wound heal but woman die because reaction to drugs administered at the hospitalThe original wound + hospital negligence. D was not loiable because wound had healed and the medical treatment is palpably wrong.R v Roberts [1972]: D assault pa. Jump car, ABHNot so unforeseeable – thin skull ruleR v. Blaue: You are not giving up your fundamental belief. You are committed to free, in a broad offence. Religious reasons

Omissions

R v Pittwood [1902]: duty to open a door and fail to close, V killed by the trainA person in contract is liable for his omissions and acts of his contractual obligiationsR v Gibbins and Procotor – D failed to provide food for his child: special relationshipR v Miller – dangerous actR v Khan – refine Miller that consideration was given whether drug dealer whose customer had collapsed following self-adminstering of drugs was under a duty to act by summon medical assistance.

Theory There are different kinds of luck. In the law, we focuses on luck

Substantial luck means the causes are of substance. That by no means that there is a large quantity.

X,Y,A,B (slide 3) are the causes of Z death. They are of substantial cause.

There can be more than one substantial cause.

Principle of Legal Causation:• 1. Natural or abnormal events. R v. White (poison mother case)• 2. Third party interventions. (novus actus? B, the doctor intervene)• 3. Victim’s reaction. (victim’s contribution), A stab B, B committed suicide

despite A is a but for cause• 4. Medical treatment.

Natural abnormal events do not break the chain of causation1. When they are a normal, foreseeable event (earthquake causes people die)2. When I ‘harness’ nature (leaving him hurt at edge of shore for the tide to

come in and drown him, harnessing power nature.)

Third party interventions: ‘Free, deliberate and informed’ actions by 3rd party.• Not FREE?• Free, deliberate and informed’ actions by 3rd party.• Pagett was charged on manslaughter: NOT FREE)

Man trying to resist arrest fires gun at police and uses pregnant girlfriend as a human shield. Police fire back killing girlfriend. CA says albeit police shooting was a substantial cause of the death. The intervention of the police is NOT A FREE one as they are backed with threat by the D.R v. Blaue: You are not giving up your fundamental belief. You are committed to free, in a broad offence.

Not informed?Saunders & Archer: Lover’s case. Saunders wanted to give poison apple to his wife from his girlfriend. Wife cuts for his children. There is a fatal consequences: Wife is not liable albeit free, deliberate but not informed.

Arguably wrong:Arguably wrong? Environmental Agency v Empress Car Co

• Oil entered river, it seems, when trespasser turned on an oil tap. Surely this was the free, informed and voluntary act of a third party?!?

• Lord Hoffman—no: chain of causation broken only if third party act is abnormal and extraordinary. Trespasser turning on tap was ‘a normal and familiar fact of life’ even if ‘unforeseeable’. Company thus did cause pollution.

• A legal cause must be a ‘substantial’ cause but need not be the only or even the main cause:R v. Smith.V stabbed in mass brawl. V dropped twice on way to hospital, in the confusion. At hospital, V’s pierced lung not noticed. The treatment ‘thoroughly bad’ as there had been a 75% chance of recovery; but causal chain not broken. Jordan distinguished as ‘a very particular case dependent upon its exact facts’

• "As a matter of law, it was sufficient if the prosecution could establish that it was a cause, provided that it was a cause outside the de minimis range, and effectively bearing upon the acceleration of the moment of the victim's death.” Cato [1976] 1 All ER 260 (CA).

• ‘Self-injection’ cases:• D knowingly provides V with a prohibited drug in a syringe. V injects him or

herself with the drug, which causes V’s death.• Notice this case may turn our normal principle.