Actus reus (conduct, results and causation) - Seminar 2023

What to look out for in multiple-choice questions:

Knowledge and understanding of content: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of

the law and issues relating to the topic areas covered, including applicable theories;
concepts; values; principles; and legal rules, including cases, legislation and regulations.

The demonstration of knowledge and understanding depends on identifying the following in

the available choices:

o Inaccuracies.
o Outdated law.
o Contradictions.
o Omissions, incompleteness.
o Imprecision, ambiguity, confusion.
o Irrelevancy.
o Legal uncertainty, ambiguity and debatable law.
o Subtle differences between alternative answers making only one answer correct or
the best answer.

Read to the materials uploaded to Moodle on causation (the pdf reading is in the first
section week one). Then answers the following questions. Note: D = defendant... V = victim

Question 1

Which of the following statements best describes the position regarding the statement or
events? (Also consider why you have not selected the other three answers).

Intending to cause V serious harm, D stabbed V in the leg. V had a medical condition where
they bled profusely and more than other people if they suffered a wound. D failed to get V
medical help. As a result of V’s condition, V suffered massive blood loss and died. If V had
not had the condition, V would have lived. D is charged with murder. Murder is the unlawful
killing of another human being within the King’s peace, with the intention to kill or cause
serious bodily harm. The surrounding circumstances for the offence are in existence, but
consider the other elements of ‘conduct’ and ‘result’.

A) The conduct was a positive act so there is no need to address the issue of conduct by
omission. The required result occurred because V died. The issue is whether the conduct
caused the result. Regarding factual causation, but for D’s conduct, V would not have died.
Despite evidence that V would have lived if they had not had the condition, legal causation
can also be established. This is because although V’s condition meant they suffered massive
blood loss that contributed to death, D has to take their victim as they find them.
B) The conduct was a positive act, so there is no need to address the issue of conduct by
omission. The required result occurred because V died. The issue is whether the conduct
caused the result. Regarding factual causation, but for D’s conduct, V would not have died.
However, legal causation cannot be established because V’s condition meant they suffered
massive blood loss that contributed to death, and they would have lived had they not had
the condition. It would therefore be unfair to say that D legally caused death.

C) The conduct was an omission, because the failure to get V medical help, meant that V
bled to death. The required result occurred because V died. The issue is whether the
conduct caused the result. Regarding factual causation, but for D’s conduct, V would not
have died. Despite evidence that V would have lived if they had not had the condition, legal
causation can also be established. This is because although V’s condition meant they
suffered massive blood loss that contributed to death, D has to take their victim as they find
them.

D) The conduct was an omission, because the failure to get V medical help, meant that V
bled to death. The required result occurred because V died. The issue is whether the
conduct caused the result. Regarding factual causation, but for D’s conduct, V would not
have died. However, legal causation cannot be established because V’s condition meant
they suffered massive blood loss that contributed to death, and they would have lived had
they not had the condition. It would therefore be unfair to say that D caused death.

Question 2

Which of the following statements best describes the position regarding the statement or
events? (Also consider why you have not selected the other three answers).

During an argument outside a pub, D, who was very aggressive and threatening to
hospitalise V, hit V with an iron bar. V was injured but tried to escape. V ran from the pub
with D in pursuit. V came to a large hole in the road. V could see it was about 1.5 metres
wide (just under 5 ft) and 3 metres deep (just under 10 ft). There was a barrier with a
warning sign, which V hurriedly removed. V attempted to jump across the hole but fell into
it. The fall to the ground in the hole caused V a broken leg. Meanwhile, people working on
the road came back from lunch, so D ran off. Assume D is charged with causing grievous
bodily harm to V’s leg. In relation to the element of D’s conduct causing the result:

A) D is the factual cause of harm, as but for D chasing V, V would not have suffered a broken
leg. Regarding legal causation. V’s conduct, was a natural result of D’s conduct. This is
because it was reasonably foreseeable, given the circumstances. Therefore V did not break
the chain of causation. However, D did not directly cause the result, as required, because D
did not touch V’s leg. Therefore D is not the legal cause of the result.

B) D is the factual cause of harm, as but for D chasing V, V would not have suffered a broken
leg. Regarding legal causation. V’s conduct, was not a natural result of D’s conduct. This is
because it was not reasonably foreseeable, given the circumstances. Therefore, V broke the
chain of causation. In addition, D did not directly cause the result, as required, because D
did not touch V’s leg. D is not the legal cause of the result.

C) is the factual cause of harm, as but for D chasing V, V would not have suffered a broken
leg. Regarding legal causation. V’s conduct, was not a natural result of D’s conduct. This is
because it was not reasonably foreseeable, given the circumstances. Therefore, V broke the
chain of causation. In addition, D did not directly cause the result, as required, because D
did not touch V’s leg, and neither was D’s conduct blameworthy. D is not the legal cause of
the result.

D) D is the factual cause of harm, as but for D chasing V, V would not have suffered a broken
leg. Regarding legal causation, V’s conduct was a natural result of D’s conduct. This is
because it was reasonably foreseeable, given the circumstances. Therefore V did not break
the chain of causation, so D is also the legal cause of the result. It does not matter that D’s
conduct indirectly caused the result.

Question 3

Which of the following statements best describes the position regarding the statement or
events? (Also consider why you have not selected the other three answers). Note: you will
need to refer to both the ‘AR conduct materials’, (see omissions and the references to the
offence of murder) and the ‘AR results materials’.

D and V were married but often had bad arguments and the relationship was rapidly
deteriorating. During a heated argument, D opened the floor hatch to the basement of their
home, and climbed down the steep stairs to the basement, so that they could enjoy some
peace and silence. The floor hatch was in a narrow part of the hallway floor and
immediately the other side of a sharp corner-turn in the hallway. As this posed a risk of
falling when the hatch door was open, both D and V had a rule that they would shut the
hatch door after themselves, if going to the basement. In an angered state, D had not closed
the hatch. V was still shouting and insisting on continuing the argument. D could hear V’s
footsteps above, and it was obvious that D was walking towards the hatch. D contemplated
that V might fall through the open hole and into the basement. Given the steepness of the
stairs, this could obviously lead to serious harm and even death. D was fed up with V, and
wanted V dead. D was a mean person who liked the easy route to get what they wanted in
life, and D saw an opportunity. Therefore, although D had plenty of time to shut the door, D
continued to sit in the basement and did not warn V or shut the door. A few moments later,
V turned the corner in the hallway, did not notice the hatch door open, and fell through the
gap in the floor. V tumbled down the stairs, hit their head on the floor at the bottom and
died instantly.

A) D will be charged with murder. D’s conduct was the positive act of opening the hatch
door, which led to death. Factual causation is established because but for D’s conduct of
opening the door, V would not have died. Legal causation can also be established as the
result can be indirectly caused and V’s subsequent conduct did not represent an intervening
act that broke the chain of causation; D remained the operating and substantial cause of
death.

B) D will be charged with murder. Murder can be committed by a positive act and by an
omission. On the facts, D’s conduct was an omission (failure to act); here when D failed to
shut the door. A duty to act to prevent death arose as they are spouses. D also had a duty to
act because D created a dangerous situation that brought a reasonably foreseeable risk of
harm. Factual causation is established because but for D’s conduct of failing to shut the
door, V would not have died. Legal causation can also be established as the result can be
indirectly caused.

C) D will be charged with murder. D’s conduct was the positive act of opening the hatch
door, which led to death. Factual causation is established because but for D’s conduct of
opening the door, V would not have died. Legal causation can also be established as the
result can be indirectly caused.

D) D will be charged with gross negligence manslaughter, which can be committed by a

positive act or an omission. On the facts, this could either be the positive act of opening the
door, or D’s failure to close the door. If a failure, then D’s duty to act arose through the fact
they are spouses. Factual causation is established because but for D’s conduct of opening
the door, or failing to shut it, V would not have died. Regarding legal causation, this can also
be established as the result can be indirectly caused and V’s subsequent conduct did not
represent an intervening act that broke the chain of causation; D remained the operating
and substantial cause of death.