Actus reus

Question 1

What is the actus reus of a crime?

Answer 1

The physical element of a crime.

Question 2

What can an actus reus be?

Answer 2

An act, omission or state of affairs.

Question 3

Does the actus reus have to be voluntary?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

What did the court give examples of in Hill v Baxter?

Answer 4

Where a driver could not be said to be doing the act of driving voluntarily, such as when he is stung by a swarm of bees.

Question 5

When can a defendant be convicted even if they did not act voluntarily?

Answer 5

In a ‘state of affairs’ case.

Question 6

What is the normal rule regarding omissions?

Answer 6

Omissions cannot make a man guilty.

Question 7

What do some countries have?

Answer 7

A Good Samaritan law.

Question 8

What are some problems with the Good Samaritan law?

Answer 8

1. A rogue could pretend to be injured, in order to lure in victims.
2. Could an untrained person do more harm than good?
3. Who decides that an emergency situation is present?
4. What is an emergency situation?
5. Does everyone who witnessed the incident have to help?
6. Should the Samaritans put themselves at risk?

Question 9

How can an omission make a man guilty?

Answer 9

If there is a duty to act.

Question 10

What are the 6 ways in which a duty to act can exist, and case examples for each?

Answer 10

Statutory duty - failing to provide a specimen of breath.
Contractual duty - Pittwood.
Relationship duty - Gibbins and Proctor.
Voluntary duty - Stone and Dobinson.
Official duty - Dytham.
Chain of events duty - Miller.

Question 11

If a doctor decides to discontinue treatment in the best interests of the patient, is this an omission which can form the actus reus of an offence?

Answer 11

No.

Question 12

Which case decided that doctors discontinuing treatment does not make them liable?

Answer 12

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland.

Question 13

What are three problems with the law on omissions?

Answer 13

1. Actus reus is not an accurate description of conduct.
2. The case of Khan and Khan means that the law can expand indefinitely.
3. Law is contradictory in the area of doctors.

Question 14

When a consequences has to be proved, what are the three elements that must be proven?

Answer 14

The defendant’s conduct was;
the factual cause
the legal cause
not interrupted by any intervening acts that broke the chain of causation.

Question 15

How is the defendant’s conduct the factual cause of the consequence, and which case demonstrates this?

Answer 15

If the consequence would not have happened but for the defendant’s behaviour, the defendant’s behaviour is the factual cause of the consequence.
Demonstrated in Pagett.

Question 16

Which case did not satisfy the but for test?

Answer 16

White.

Question 17

How can the defendant’s conduct be the legal cause of the consequence?

Answer 17

If their conduct was more than a minimal cause of the consequence.

Question 18

What was stated in Kimsey?

Answer 18

The defendant’s conduct must have more than a slight or trifling link with the consequence.

Question 19

What is the thin-skull rule?

Answer 19

The defendant must take their victim as they find them.

Question 20

Which case demonstrated the thin-skull rule?

Answer 20

Blaue.

Question 21

How can the chain of causation be broken?

Answer 21

By an act of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event.

Question 22

Is the chain of causation broken where the defendant’s conduct causes a foreseeable reaction by a third party?

Answer 22

No.

Question 23

Is medical treatment likely to break the chain of causation?

Answer 23

No, unless it is so independent of the defendant’s acts and in itself so potent in causing death that the defendant’s acts are insignificant.

Question 24

What are examples of medical negligence and did they break the chain of causation?

Answer 24

Smith - no.
Cheshire - no.
Jordan - yes.

Question 25

Is switching off a life-support machine by a doctor a break in the chain of causation?

Answer 25

No, this was decided in Malcherek.

Question 26

What happens if the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable way?

Answer 26

Injury to the victim is the fault of the defendant as in Roberts and Marjoram.

Question 27

What happens if the victim’s reaction is unreasonable?

Answer 27

The chain of causation will be broken as in Williams.

Question 28

What are some problems regarding the law on causation?

Answer 28

1. The phrase ‘slight or trifling link’ is difficult to understand.
2. Should the defendant be liable if the victim has a medical condition which makes the injury worse?
3. Should the defendant be liable when the victim refuses treatment?