ACTUS REUS

Act (Positive conduct)

Actus reus refers to the act or omission that comprise the physical elements of a crime
as required by statute. Actus reus includes only a voluntary affirmative act, or an
omission (failure to act), causing a criminally prohibited result. For example, if a thief
shoves a gun into the side of a victim and says: “Your money or your life” - the
shoving of the gun is the actus reus.
- The actus reus includes only voluntary bodily movements, particularly one which
society has an interest in preventing. Thus, if a defendant acted on reflex, then
the defendant's conduct does not satisfy the actus reus requirement. An
involuntary act does not satisfy the actus reus requirement. Where an accused
suggests that they committed an offence involuntarily, they are raising the
defence of automatism. The defence of automatism arises from one of the very
basic principles of criminal law that is embedded in case law: that an accused
cannot be found guilty of an act which occurred independently of their will (see s.
9 of the Penal Code)
- Automatism is not a medical condition or state. It is a legal term used to describe
a situation where acts or behaviour have occurred without the volition or will of
the accused. The determining factor is the lack of exercise of the accused’s will
and not a lack of consciousness or knowledge on the accused’s part.
Automatism is not related to whether the person knew what they were doing.
Rather, it relies on whether there was no deliberation in the behaviour, and
whether the accused acted automatically. Automatism is not about not
understanding that the actions were ‘wrong’. Not knowing that something was
wrong, and going ahead and doing it with forethought, is not ‘automatism’.
Omission (Negative Conduct)
Alternately, the actus reus requirement can also be satisfied by an omission. This is true
only when the individual had a duty to act, and failed to act. Generally, for the purposes
of criminal liability, an individual may be under a duty to act if:
- A statute requires a person to act in a certain way.
- A contract requires a person to act in a certain way.
- Some special status relationship exists that creates a duty to act in a certain way
(i.e. parental responsibilities).
- A voluntary assumption of care creates a duty to act in a certain way.
- The individual created the risk.
Questions to Ponder on
- If am taking a healthy walk and I see a child drowning but I walk on, am I liable
for the child’s death?
- What if my friend's child is at my house and I walk away when he slips into the
pool and harm is occasioned?
1
 - What if I kidnap a child and I omit to provide the child with food which leads to his
death, am I liable for his death?
Conduct and Results Crimes
- In conduct crimes, what is cardinal is showing that A did a wrong and usually
there is no apparent harm suffered e.g. not wearing a seat belt.
- In result crimes however, proof of both the wrongful conduct and resulting harm
is required. For instance, in cases of unlawful killing, the prosecution has to prove
that A did an unlawful act which caused the death of B. If there is no relationship
between the “act” and the resulting “harm” then the actus reus has not
manifested.
Questions
- If A places a banana peel in B’s path and B falls as a result of slipping leading to
her death, can A be liable if
(a) B dies from a head injury or
(b) Dies from meningitis?
Causation
Causation in simple terms is the casual relationship conduct and result. For an accused
to be liable, his conduct/omission should have a connection with the resulting effects
(harm/injury). Where there is a break in the chain, then one is not liable
- For A to be liable for the harm caused to B, A’s conduct/omission must be
(a) Voluntary
(b) prohibited by law
(c) The substantial cause of the result. White (1910) 2 KB 124
- If contribution/result is remote, then A is not liable Benge (1865) 4 F & F 504
- It is irrelevant that A did not initiate the harm, the cardinal point is A’s contribution
to the resultant harm. Is it substantial or not
(d) There must be no break in chain if causation. i.e. intervening events.
The “But For” Principle (factual Causation)
- Factual causation: it must be shown that, “but for” the defendant's act, the event
would not have occurred. The act must be a causa sine qua non (“cause without
which”) of the event. A test sometimes known as the “but for” test.
- Had A not stabled B, B would not die of anemia.
- Note that the act/omission alluded to in the but for principle, is an unlawful act
like unlawful wounding, arson, reckless driving
Legal causation: the defendant's act must be an operative and substantial cause of the
consequence. His act need not be the sole cause, but must make a significant and not
trivial (de minimis non curat lex) contribution to the result. For example, if a doctor takes
a blood sample from a patient who has been stabbed and is dying the taking of the
blood will weaken the patient, but the doctor's role in the patient's death is minimal and
causally insignificant.
2
 - Illustration If A invites B to dinner and B is run over by a car on the way to A’s
house, A’s not liable because invitation to dinner is not an offence. But if A sets
B’s house on fire, where C is asleep, A is liable because but for A’s act of arson,
C would not have died in B’s house.
- Patson Simbalula Chibele v The P SCZ No.1 of 1991

Dyson (1908-10) ALL ER 736 A’s act/omission need not be the initial cause but must
accelerate the result.
- A father severely beat his child who sustained injuries from the beating. The
child was hospitalized and found to have meningitis but died from the injuries.
Medical evidence showed the child would have died from meningitis before long.
The father was convicted of manslaughter and appealed on the ground that he
was not the “but for” cause of his child’s death. The court dismissed his appeal
on the ground that his action accelerated the time the death would occur.
- In McKechnie (1992) 94 Cr App R 51, D beat up an elderly man, V, who
suffered very serious head injuries and remained unconscious for weeks.
Doctors discovered that V had a duodenal ulcer but decided that it would be too
dangerous to operate because he was still unconscious from his beating. V died
as a result of the ulcer bursting. D was convicted and appealed inter alia on the
direction as to causation. The Court of Appeal, upholding his conviction, ruled
that D was still the cause of V’s death since the doctors’ decision not to operate
was due to the effects of the initial beating.
- In Benge (1865) case, a freeman at a plate laying point negligently failed to
ensure the safety of the men working on the rail. One of the men died as a result
of this negligence. The court found that A’s omission substantially contributed to
the death. But for his omission, B would have not died.

- Find out what the court ruled in the case of Adams (1957) Crim LR 356 where
doctor administered strong pain killers to his terminally ill patient who later die.
Novus Actus Interveniens (new intervening act)
Sometimes a new act or event (novus actus (or nova causa) interveniens) may break
the legal chain of causation and relieve the defendant of responsibility. The chain of
causation between the defendant's act and the resulting consequences will be broken if
another unforeseeable act occurs and if “the second cause is so overwhelming as to
make the original [act] merely part of the history” (Lord Parker CJ in R v Smith [1959] 2
QB 35 at 42-43).
- The liability is not imposed on the defendant when his chain of causation is
broken by the voluntary action of a third party that does preclude the act of the
accused as a cause of the proscribed result. Moreover, the actions of the third

3
 party must be unconnected with the ones of the defendant and amount to a new
cause.
- As a novus actus can be occasioned by anyone or anything other than the initial
wrongdoer. This general category also includes the injured party him or herself,
another third party or even an act of God.
Case example - R v Williams and Davies [1992] 1 WLR 380
Facts
- The defendants picked up a hitchhiker. The defendants then attempted to rob the
victim who became agitated and afraid and in this mental state jumped out of the
moving vehicle. The victim hit his head and died of his injuries. The defendants
were charged with manslaughter. What had happened in the car to cause the
victim to jump out was not certain.
Issues
- Whether the act of the defendant in jumping out of the car broke the chain of
causation. The victim had jumped out of the car and this was an act of his which
may have been argued to have broken the chain of causation between the
defendant’s unlawful act of robbing the victim and his death. What role the
question of foreseeability of the victim’s actions played in the defendant’s guilt?
Decision / Outcome
- The defendants were found not guilty after a direction to this effect was given to
the jury. Modifying the test set down in R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95
which held that the chain of causation would only be broken if the victim
committed an act so unforeseeable that no reasonable man could be expected to
foresee the act, it was held that the jury should consider whether the victim’s act
was within the range of reasonable responses available to the victim in the
circumstances. This required consideration of his psychological state and any
particular characteristics of the victim and an acknowledgement that the stress of
the situation or event may lead to the victim acting without thought. In this case
however there was not enough evidence that the defendant’s acts had led to the
victim’s reaction being within the range of reasonable responses available to him.
Thin Skull Rule
The principle that dictates that a defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm or loss
to the claimant even where it is of a more significant extent than would have been
expected, due to a pre-existing condition or circumstance of the claimant.
See - R v Blaue (1975) 1 WLR 1411
Facts:
- The defendant entered the home of an 18-year-old woman and asked for sex.
When she refused, he stabbed her. The wound caused the need for a surgery.
Due to her religious beliefs she refused her treatment and she died. Medical
evidence showed that she would not have died if she had received the treatment.
4
Issue:
- Did the victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment broke the chain of causation
between the stabbing and her death?
Held:
- No. Overall, Lawton LJ ruled that, as a matter of public policy, those “who use
violence on others must take their victims as they find them.” invoking the thin-
skull rule. Subsequently, the defendant’s conviction of manslaughter was upheld.
Even though the acts of a hospital or the victim themselves might be the actual
cause of death, a defendant’s act was the operative cause and thus he can be
held liable.