CRIMINAL LAW

WORKSHEET 2 - ACTUS REA

LECTURE NOTES IN NOTEBOOK!

LECTURE NOTES:
Egg Shell Skull Rule - taking victim as you
find them (whole person including beliefs, etc)i saw the

Principle Exception - Where the victim dies as a result of stress, the person's conduct must be
deemed dangerous towards the victim eg, chasing, hitting.

Novus actus interveniens - intervening act by third party. Defendant would not be regarded as
liable if the third party breaks the chain of causation.

WOULD NOT BREAK CHAIN - compliments/ aggravates what defendant did. if main action
(original) is still operating and substantial

Would - so overwhelming that the original action is not seen as the main cause. Free, deliberate
and informed.

CROSS, CARD, JONES TEXTBOOK!

ELEMENTS OF A CRIME:

Maxim: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - "An act does not make a man guilty of a crime
unless his mind is also guilty"

Actus Reus is the act or omission to act or existence of a particular state of affairs that
constitutes the conduct or circumstance on behalf of D.

Mens rea is the state of mind of the person/s involved at the time of the commission/omission.

CASE 1: McEwan v AG of Guyana [2018] CCJ 30 paras 94-109

FACTS:
Man in women attire. Charged ith cross-dressing for an imporper purpose.

ISSUE:
Whether a person should be punished based on their thoughts, desires and unexecuted
intentions.

DISCUSSION:
Not focused on the conduct (actus reus) of cross-dressing.
Focused/punished/considered a crime on the state of mind of offence (mens rea) of the
improper purpose.

CONSTITUENTS OF ACTUS REUS:

1. ACTS:
Cross and Jones - Actus reus is he act or omission indicated in the definition of a crime charged
together wwith any surrounding circumstances other than the state of mind and defence and
any consequence pn the act.
An act is the doing of something.

RESULT CRIMES: The conduct of D MUST CAUSE or RESULT in certain circumstances.

CONDUCT CRIMES: The conduct of D MAY amount to the complete actus reus of the offence
even where it fails to bring about the consequences intended.

VOLUNTARY CONDUCT:
This is acts or omissions done willingly.

- OMISSIONS:
An omission (not doing something that their is a duty to do) of an act can suffice in 2 cases:
1. Definition of an offence is expressed in terms which refer to an omission Eg, statutory
offences of wilful neglect of a child, failing to disclose information.

OMISSION OF ACT WITH RESPONSIBILITY (PARENT AND CHILD, HUSBAND AND WIFE)

CASE 2: R v Gibbins and Proctor (1919) 13 Cr App R 134

FACTS:
Convicted of murder of Gibbins 7 yr old by starvation,

Discussion:
Evidence less against Gibbins because Gibbins gave Proctor money to Proctor which was
meant to provide for the basic needs of the child. Both convicted with same charge.
Appeal Dismissed

CASE 3: R v Downes (1875) 13 Cox CC 111

FACTS:
Father of deceased failed to provide medical aid to the infant child or got ill. Instead of taking the
child for medical assistance, asked peple to pray.

HELD:
Statute posed a duty that a parent or guardian has a duty to provide food, shelter, medical aid
and clothing for a child under 14 that is in their custody.

Conviction Affirmed.
CASE 4: Lowe [1973] QB 702
FACTS:
Father was of low intelligence and knew his child was ill but did not call a doctor

ISSUE:Judge directed jury that manslaughter is a consequence of wilful neglect. Misdirection on

the term "wilful neglect" which suggests an intention of the consequences and not merely
inadvertently (not accidental)

DECISION:
Wilful neglect means deliberate and even though he may not have foreseen the consequences,
it was deliberate that he did not call a doctor. His conviction SHOULD HAVE BEEN
manslaughter by negligence inadvertently (accidental). Therefore, jury WAS misdirected and
conviction quashed.

Appeal allowed

2. D was under a LEGAL duty to act and did not fulfil that duty.
Duty to Act can arise from the following:
- under a contract
- through the holding of a public office
- parenthood (listed above)
- Voluntary undertaking of care for someone unable to care for themselves

- DUTY TO ACT UNDER CONTRACT:

This can be owed to a 3rd party to whom the contractual obligation is not owed. Eg, Pittwood
(1902) 19 TLR 37

CASE 5: Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37

FACTS:
Defendant employed by a railway to operate a gate at a level across a track. ifted gate to allow
a cart to cross but did not put it down before his lunch break. Horse and cart crossed track and
train hit them killing both.

ISSUE: Whether the defendant can be held liable for manslaughter under breach of contractual
duty.

HELD:
Because the defendant was under a contractual duty to close the gat, his omission to perform
that task can hold him liable.

Appeal Dismissed.
- DUTY TO ACT IF HE HOLDS A PUBLIC OFFICE:
CASE 6: Dytham [1979] QB 722
FACTS:
Constable in uniform failed to break-up a fight that occured resulting in death.

ISSUE: Whether the appellant can be held liable for misconduct of a justice officer under breach
of contractual duty.

HELD:
Appellant wilfully neglected to perform his contractual duty under the law without a reasonable
justification.

Appeal Dismissed.

- VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKINGS OF PERSONS UNABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES

CASE 7: R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450
FACTS:
Instan, without ailments of her own, lived with the deceased and prior to her death, the
deceased became ill and was unable to do things for herself. Defendant took the food supply
and provided nothing to the deceased nor did she aid the deceased with nursing and medica
assistance. No one else besides the defendant knew of the deceased's ailments and
subsequently died from lack of food. nursing and medical assistance.

HELD:
Duty was imposed on defendant as cohabitant to aid the deceased with assistance through food
supply, medical and nursing attendance. Defendant is in breach/neglect of this voluntary
undertaking and was subsequently convicted of manslaughter.

Conviction affirmed.

CASE 8: Stone and Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341

FACTS:
S's sister, with severe disabilities, lodged with both S and D (learning difficulties). S became
unable to take care of herself and D attempted to care by bring food and washing but was not
enough and she died.

ISSUE:
Whether S and D were in breach of duty of voluntary undertakings.

HELD:
S was in breach due to close ties and not only a lodger but a blood relative.
D undertook care of her through feeding and washing.
Gross negligence implies the defendants were "indifferent" to the risk or foreseen the risk and
did it anyway.
PRINCIPLE - Voluntary conduct of care may be implies from the defendant's conduct toward the
victim of neglect.

Convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.

DUTY TO ACT ENDS WHEN RELATIONSHIP OR TIES TO DUTY TO ACT END. Eg, Patient
refusing treatment, doctor's must respect regardless of their duty to heal.

- WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE/UNDER DUTY TO ACT FOR THE CREATION

OF A DANGEROUS SITUATION.
The defendant creates a dangerous situation thereby instilling a duty to act to prevent any
outcomes from that situation.

CASE 9: R v Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978

THIS CASE IS UNDER COINCIDENCE BETWEEN ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA.
WORKSHEET 3!
Case of homeless man falling asleep with a lit cigarette that falls on the mattress causing it to
catch fire. Instead of extinguishing it, moved to other room.

CASE 10: Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439

FACTS:
Police officer told appellant to move car which he did but in doing so, rolled over the foot of the
police officer. Police officer sternly told him to move off it but appellant swore at him and turn the
car off. Charged with assault on police officer.

HELD:
For the act of assault to be committed, both actus reus and mens rea should coincide at the
same time.
FOUND: "Although assault is an independent crime and is to be treated as such, for practical
purposes today, assault is generally synonymous with battery."

The act of driving on the foot and not stopping that act constituted battery (doing a harmful act
without consent/no matter the objection of the other person. Eg, Touching a person that says to
stop.)

Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.

EXTENT OF DUTY TO ACT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES

- FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL TREATMENT (DOCTOR KEEPING PATIENTS ALIVE).

Doctor can withdraw care if it is deemed not necessary (someone in vegetative state)
CASE 11: Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821
FACTS:
Bland was injured while 17 that left him in a vegetative state, being fed through a tube. Doctor's
given permission to remove tube. Decision appealed.

ISSUE: Person in vegetative state cannot offer consent. Doctors have to act in the best
interests.

HELD:
Was lawful to withdraw life-extending treatment (feeding tube) if there was no potential for
improvement. Treatment deceased was recieving was not in his best interests.

Appeal Dismissed of NHS trust fund (to convict) is dismissed.

STATE OF AFFAIRS:
State of affairs dels with a strict liability offence. Not necessarily when an act or omission is
committed but rather something prohibited by the state.

CASE 12: R v Larsonneur (1934) 24 Cr App R 74

Appellant had french passport was granted access to England but had to leave on a specific
date. She left and went to Ireland and they deported her back to England after the date she was
supposed to leave and convicted of being in the country as an alien

HELD:
Circumstances of her being present in England are immaterial.

Appeal Dismissed

AUTOMATISM
This is when an act is committed out of the control of the defendant. This is caused by an
external force.
Where the cause is internal (mental illness), a defence of insanity would be more appropriate,

CASE 13: Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386

FACTS:
B convicted of the murder of an 18yr old girl and relied on the defence of automatism for
psychomotor epilepsy where he stated that he was in "a sort of blackness"

Burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that the act was done consciously and that
there was evidence to show it was consciously committed.
It was stated that if the cause is internal, it would be the same as the plea of insanity.

HELD:
Only cause alleged for this situation was internal , disease of the mind but there was no
evidence pointing to insanity at the time of the killing therefore it had nothing to show a lack of
intent.

Appeal Dismissed.

CASE 14: R v Quick and Paddison [1973] QB 910

FACTS:
The appellant was diabetic with low glucose. Took insulin but did not eat and consumed alcohol.
Had an episode that cause serious injury to another. Relied on utomatism but insanity was the
only defence available.

The offence is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly assaultsanother, thereby

causing Actual Bodily Harm. It must be proved that theassault (which includes “battery”)
“occasioned” or caused the bodily harm. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any
hurt calculated tointerfere with the health or comfort of the victim: such hurt need not be
permanent.

HELD:
Can lie on automatism as the lack of insulin is an external factor and NOT diabetes which is
internal. Conviction quashed.

CASE 15:
Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 227
FACTS:
Dangerous driving. Overcome by illness. Blacked out.
Doctors examined and found no abnormality to show blackout

ISSUE:
Whether automatism can apply.

HELD:
Defendant was riving dangerously and the Act contained a statute that prohibited dangerous
driving

Appeal allowed

JUSTIFICATION VS EXCUSE
Justification renders the conduct lawful. An excuse, excuses D from liability for the unlawful
conduct.

Justifications are not defences but if they are raised, the prosecution has to disprove them.
Eg, consent in rape cases.
CAUSATION:
The conduct of defendant must have cause the result

CASE: Gafoor v Thomas CA Guyana, (2018) 92 WIR 398

CHECK NOTEBOOK!!!

- FACTUAL CAUSATION:
Casual connection between conduct of defendant and outcome. A person that has the mens rea
of the offence cannot be convicted if they have not done the actus reus,

CASE 16: R v White [1910] 2 KB 124

FACTS:
Appellant convicted of attempted murder of his mother. Deceased was found dead next to a
wine glass contaiing cyanide. No cyanide found in the system but appellant was proved to have
purchased cyanide beforehand.

ISSUE:
Whether appellant can be convicted of murder when his actions (cyanide in the drink) was not
factually related ti the consequence.

HELD:
"but for" test.
Must be shown that but for the actions of the appelant, the outcome woud not have resulted.
Cannot be convicted of murder.

Can be convicted of attempted murder even if the plan was not executed.

Conviction of attempted murder upheld.

- LEGAL CAUSATION:
The act or conduct of defendant MUST contribute a SIGNIFICANT/SUBSTANTIAL cause of the
result. (This occurs when there are other factors at play that may contribute to outcome).

1. The extent of D’s contribution

Must comprise substantial and operating cause of actus reus. Does not have to be main cause
but must not be minor. More than negligible contribution.

CASE 17: R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133

FACTS:
Death by dangerous driving.

MISDIRECTION OF JUDGE:
Using the term "substantial"

HELD:
it is only necessary for the prosecution to show that the accused's dangerous driving was a
cause of the accident and was something more than de minimis.

Appeal dismissed.

2. Multiple Causes
Number of causes but the defendant's conduct must be one if each is sufficient to have brought
the result.

CASE 18: Benge (1856) 4 F&F 504.

FACTS:B and others were repairing and replacing railway tracks. B misread the railway
timetable and sent C to inform the train to stop. C was meant to walk 1000 yards to stop the
train but only walked halfway there. Train driver was not paying attention. Did not stop. People
died.

ISSUE:
B charged for negligently causing deaths. Argued that accident could not have occured without
negligence of others (C and driver)

OUTCOME:
Guilty as B played a substantial role in causing the accident despite other factors being
substantial.

3. Indirect Causation
Act does not have to be the direct cause of outcome.

CASE 19: McKechnie (1992) 94 Cr App R 51

FACTS:
Appellant and others attacked an elderly man causing brain damage. In hospital they found he
had a stomach ulcer but could not treat it because of brain damage. Died from ulcer

OUTCOME:
The ulcer would not have been discovered if it werent for the actions of appellant and others but
it is for the defendant to take the victim as he finds him (Egg Shell Skull rule). Brain damage
was substantial cause as it prevented treatment.

Convicted.

4. Victim's Condition
Egg Shell Skull Rule. "taking victim as you find them" (beliefs and all). If a person is vulnerable
(from an existing medical condition), D must accept the liability if a result were to occur after the
consequence.

CASE: R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150

EXCEPTION TO EGG SHELL RULE. NOTE BOOK!

CASE 20: R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692

FACTS:
Husband and Wife argue and he chases her outside and she collapsed. Husband chased and
shouted threats at her. She had an abnormal thyroid which meant shock paired with physical
actions can cause death.

ISSUE:
Would the medical issue break the chain of causation

OUTCOME:
Husband found guilty of manslaughter. Caused her fright with chasing and verbal threats.
Husband had the mens rea.

CASE 21: R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446

FACTS:
Appellnt attacked young girl with knife. Girl taken to hospital and needed a blood transfusion but
because of her religious beliefs, she refused and died.

ISSUE:
Whether the chain of causation was broken by the girl's refusal for a blood transfusion

HELD:
Stab wound was operating cause of death despite the refusal.

Appeal Dismissed

5. Continuing Conduct
Important if the result intended was sufficient despite produced in an unintended manner,

CASE 22: Thabo Meli [1954] 1 All ER 373

FACTS:
Appellants created a plan to murder the deceased. Gave him stuff to drink then hit him over the
head. Believing him to be dead, they rolled his body over a cliff and cause of death was
exposure to elements at foot of cliff.

ARGUMENT FROM APPELLANTS:

First act (hit on head) was accompanied by mens rea and the act that cause his death, cliff, was
not accompanied by mens rea.

HELD:
Offence treated as a whole. Regardless of the misapprehension of appellants (deceased had
died from hit on the head) still found liable.
Appeal Dismissed

CASE 23: Church [1965] 2 All ER 72

FACTS:
Appellant was unable to satisfy the deceased and deceased slapped him. Tey had a fight and
he knocked her out. Believing she had died, he threw her in a river which resulted in her
drowning to death.
charged with manslaughter.

HELD:
The actions of appellant resulted in her death and it did not matter the belief system at the time.

Appeal Dismissed

CASE 24: Le Brun [1992] QB 61

FACTS:Appellant had argument with wife and knocked her out. Attempted to pick her up ut she
fell, hit head and died.

ISSUE: Whether D would be guilty of masnlaughter even though his intention did not coincide
with consequence.

OUTCOME:
Principle - Where the unlawful application of force and the eventual act causing death are parts
of the same sequence of events, the same transaction, the fact that there is an appreciable
interval of time between the two does not serve to exonerate the defendant from liability
Assault was but for and did not act as intervening cause.

Appeal Dismissed.

- INTERVENING CAUSE:
This occurs when a fact breaks the chain of causation.

1. Acts of 3rd parties

CASE 25: R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
FACTS:
Appellant shot at police office then used a small girl as shield. Officer shot back killing the girl.
Convicted of manslaughter

ISSUE: Whether the officer's acts constituted a novus actus interveniens.

OUTCOME:
Appellant shot at officer and used girl as shield. These acts contributed to victim;s death.
Appeal dismissed.

2. Medical Treatment
CASE: Gafoor v Thomas NTE BOOK!

CASE 26: R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152

FACTS:
Appellant in air force stabbed another after dispute. Deceased died from pneumonia after
attack.

OUTCOME:
Additional evidence showed that inappropriate medical treatment caused death.

Conviction Quashed

CASE 27: R v Smith [1959] 2 All ER 193

FACTS:
Appellant stabbed man during fight. On the way to hospital, he was dropped twice and
misdiagnosis of lung puncture. Died.

ISSUE: If the negligence broke the chain of causation

OUTCOME;
Stab wound was operating course.

Appeal dismissed.

CASE 28: R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670

FACTS:
Appellant shot man during argument. Man need surgery and tracheotomy was put in. Soon
after, man came back with respiratory issues and was found that mouth narrowed cause of tube.

OUTCOME:
Appeal dismissed

3. Victim's Conduct
The above cases deal with an ‘escape’ situation, where death or serious injury occurs while the
victim is trying to escape. If death or serious injury results, the issue that arises is

whether the defendant is liable or whether the victim’s reaction is a break in the chain of
causation

D cannot be held responsible for ‘causing’ the voluntary and deliberate acts of
the victim, merely because they were foreseeable responses to his own actions

CASE 29:
FACTS:
Victim asked defendant for drugs to help sleep. Defendant injected himself.

OUTCOME:
Victim was fully informed and a consenting adult and took the drugs freely and no pressure.
Chain of causation broken BUT because criminal law will treat a victim as reasonable person
(no ailments)

Appeal overturned.

4. Where a victim commits suicide as a result of some conduct perpetrated on him/her by D, its
possible that D may be liable if D’s conduct caused some kind of recognised psychiatric illness
which in turn led the victim to commit suicide

. NATURAL EVENTS "Act of God"

when a natural event occurs, it is said that it would break the chain of causation if it is the MAIN
purpose for the outcome and NOT FORESEEABLE.