Actus Reus

Causation R v Pagett (1983)

His action leads to the police to fire back when he kidnapped his girlfriend as a
human shield .Whilst he is not the substantial cause of his girlfriends death,
but he was most at fault
Actus Reus The egg shell thin Skull rule
R v Hayward (1908)
D was charged as manslaughter when v ran out of the house and collapsed and
died in the road when he is chasing after her. His violence has led to v death
even though he did not v s condition( violent threat against her). You find your
victim as you find them.
Mens Rea
Contemporaneity Rule (Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea)
Fagan v MPC (1969)
- D accidently drove his car onto a policeman foot but he when he
realised he still refused to remove it immediately
Held : It was an continuous act which , while started without mens rea, was
still in progress at the time the mens rea was formed and so there was a
coincidence of actus reus and mens rea sufficient to found criminal liability
R v Church (1966)
Even though there is no planning before hand but D had attacked and knocked
the victim out and the D was panicked thought he had killed her so he threw
his unconscious body into the river, where she drowned.
The mens rea was punching and knocking her off when she is still conscious so
D appeal against manslaughter is dismissed





Strict Liability
R v Prince (1875)
Held : the knowledge that the girl was under the age of 16was not required in
order to establish the offence . It was sufficient to show that the defendant
intended to take the girl out of the possession of her father under the Offences
against the Person Act 1861, now s20 Sexual Offence Act 1956)







Assault
R v Lamb (1967)
[Assault if none, no unlawful act - actus Reus of battery]
D and a friend V were playing with a revolver. In the chamber there were two
bullets, but neither was opposite the hammer when D, in jest, pointed the gun
at V and pulled the trigger. The chamber rotated and V was killed.

Held: Since V shared in the joke and did not feel threatened (since both
believed the gun to be safe) there was no assault and hence no unlawful act to
support D's conviction for manslaughter.

R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54
The defendant placed an iron bar across the exit of a theatre and then shouted
fire. Several people were severely injured. He was charged under s.20 OAPA
1861. He contended that the word inflict required the direct application of
force.

Held: Indirect application of force was sufficient for a conviction under s.20.
Battery on intention of natural consequence