What is Actus Reus?

Actus Reus is the Latin word for the guilty or wrongful act. It is the physical element of the offence. The act or omission must be voluntary (deliberate). If the Defendant has no control of his actions the Actus Reus has not been committed. Actus Reus when proved beyond reasonable doubt in conjunction with Mens Rea ‘the guilty mind’ produces criminal liability.

The Actus Reus of an offence is determined through sources, case law and statutes.

The main elements of Actus Reus include: * Conduct * Voluntary Behaviour * Causation * Circumstances * Consequences * State of Affairs

Conduct
The accused must do something to commit an offence. The conduct itself might be criminal. For example taking money from another. The conduct of taking money from another represents the Actus Reus of theft. The Actus Reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct. Examples include: * Theft * Perjury * Using force to obtain property belonging to another * Rape * Possession of drugs

Omissions (not doing something)
A person cannot be liable for a failure to act unless the Defendant is under legal duty to take action.

Duty to act arising from a contract – Pittwood [1902]
When a person has a duty to act because of a duty arising from a contract, failure to perform the duty can make you criminally liable.

The Defendant was employed by a railway company; he was a level crossing keeper. The Defendant negligently left the crossing gate open and a train later collided with a horse and cart killing the driver. The Defendant was liable for the death of the train driver.

The Defendant had a duty from his contract of employment to shut the gate. This mostly applied to his employees rather than the public at large but it was enough to lead to his conviction.

Duty to act arising from a Statute - Section 1 of the children and young person’s act [1933]
If anyone who is 16 and over and has the responsibility for any young person under that age, assaults, neglects, abandons or ill-treats or causes him to be assaulted, neglected, abandoned, or ill-treated that causes unnecessary suffering that person shall be liable for conviction a fine or imprisonment for any term not exceeding 10 years.

The Actus Reus in the above act is Neglect

In the case of Gibbins & Proctor [1918] the Defendant and his wife failed to look after the man’s 7 year old child. The woman hated the child and intentionally neglected him resulting in the child dying of starvation. There was a duty from both parents to look after the child and there was failure in doing so. Failure to do so caused the parents to be liable for murder. Whilst the child was not hers, she lived with the man and accepted his home and accepted the role to look after the child. The parents were guilty of murder.

The conduct of failing to look after the child, resulting in the child dying of starvation represents the Actus Reus of Negligence.

At common law parents have a duty to look after the welfare of their child/children. Failure to carry out your duty as a parent and you can face criminal liability for the resulting harm.

Misconduct in public office – Dytham [1983]
A police officer saw a man get kicked out of a pub and get beaten to death by a bouncer. The police officer was in breach of his duty and failed to take any form of action. The police officer was guilty of the common law offence of wilful misconduct in public office.

Creating a dangerous situation – Miller [1983]
The defendant had been out drinking for the evening and went back to the house he was staying at. He had lit a cigarette and had fallen asleep on a mattress. The cigarette and the mattress had caused a small fire but instead of calling for help and trying to stop the fire, he just awoke and moved rooms.

The Defendant had caused a dangerous situation and owed a duty to call for help. He was therefore liable for failing to take steps to the duty in which he owed.

Assumption of Responsibility - R v Stone & Dobinson [1977]
Stone and Dobinson decided to look after their relative who was suffering with mental problems and anorexia. She was eventually found dead in her bed in appalling conditions.

Stone and Dobinson were liable for the death of their relative. They had assumed responsibility and had failed to look after her or ensure she got the right medical attention she needed.

Voluntary Behaviour
One of the most important aspects of Actus Reus is that the criminal actions have to be voluntary. Under criminal laws an individual cannot be convicted of an offence if the illegal behaviour was involuntary. Actus Reus did not occur if actions were committed involuntarily. There are some instances where an individual may take part in activities over which he or she had no control. Though these occurrences are rare, they do occur.

Automatism – Complete Defence
Automatism is something external that the Defendant does not bring upon himself. It applies to the situation where the Defendant is not legally insane but because of an external factor he is unable to control what he is doing. Could be defined as a reflex action, spasm or convulsion, or when a person is not conscious of what they are doing, for example, sleepwalking, or an act done whilst suffering from concussion. In these situations there is a lack of Actus Reus. The act was not voluntary. Or there is a lack of Mens Rea, because the Defendant is not conscious of their actions.

A-G Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1993]: The appellant was a lorry driver who crashed into parked cars on a motorway. Two people died. He raised the defence of non-insane automatism based on ‘driving without awareness’ induced by ‘repetitive stimulus experienced on long journeys on straight flat roads’. Driving without awareness was not capable of founding a defence of automatism.

The defence of automatism requires a total lack of voluntary control from the Defendant. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough.

Causation
Causation must be established in all result crimes. Causation is defined as the relationship between a given result and the actions that have caused the result to occur. Did the accused cause the harm suffered by the victim? In criminal liability causation is divided into factual causation and legal causation.

* Causation in Fact * Causation in Law

Both have to be proved in order to blame the accused for the harm suffered by the victim.

Causation in Fact
Factual causation consists of applying the ‘But for’ test. Did the accused actually cause the injury?
‘But for what the Defendant did would the consequences have occurred?’
There has to be a causal link between actions and consequences.

White [1910]: The Defendant put cyanide into his mother’s drink. The victim died, but interestingly she didn’t die from poison, she died from a heart attack before the poison had a chance to kill her.
‘But for the Defendant putting cyanide in her drink, would she have died?’ Unfortunately his mother was going to die anyway; she died completely unrelated to the poison. She would have died without the consumption of cyanide. He didn’t cause his mother’s death, so murder wouldn’t be a reasonable punishment but he attempted to kill her so he was guilty of attempted murder.

R v Pagett [1983]: Pagett had a gun fight with the police and was using a pregnant 16 year old girl as a shield. Because the Defendant used fire, the police shot back in self-defence. The police shot the 16 year old girl. We then apply the ‘But for’ test.
But for the Defendant using the pregnant girl as a shield, would she have died?’

Causation in Law
Causation in fact is required in additional to factual causation. Causation in fact does not always mean there will be causation in law. Causation in law can be established by showing the Defendants act was a substantial cause of the consequence and that there was no intervening act.
Substantial means more than something trivial. For example a deep cut and a pin prick, they both constitute as wounds but one is worse than the other. The behaviour of the Defendant has to be a substantial cause of the injury or death.

R v Smith [1959] The Defendant stabbed the victim with a bayonet during a fight in barracks. He needed medical attention. The victim’s friend took him to the first aid post but in doing so dropped the victim twice on the way. At the first aid post the medical officer was busy and the victim died two hours after the stabbing. He had gotten insufficient medical treatment. Had he been given proper treatment, he would have survived.
His chances of recovery were severely diminished because of the lack of medical treatment but the lack of medical treatment does not break the chain of causation. At the time of death if the original wound is still a substantial cause the death then the death is a result of the stab wound. The second cause of death has to be overwhelming in order for the Defendant in this case not to be liable. Because lack of medical treatment does not break the chain of causation, the defendant who produced the first stab wound is guilty.

An intervening act or intervening events
‘Novus actus interviens,’ meaning a new act which intervenes with the original act.
An intervening act is an act which breaks the chain of causation.
The chain of causation is a sequence of events caused by the Defendant’s conduct.

The chain of causation can be broken by: * A third party * The victim’s own act * An act of God, a natural but unpredictable event

Third party: In the case of R v Pagett [1983] the third party involved in the standoff shooting between the police and Defendant was the pregnant 16 year old. The Defendant was using as a human shield. It was foreseeable that the girl could get shot due to the Defendant using her as protection. Because this action was foreseeable the third party did not break the chain of causation.

The act of the victim: in the case of R v Roberts [1971]. A woman accepted a lift from the Defendant at a party to go to another party. She had never met the man before. The Defendant drove elsewhere, stopped in a remote place and made sexual advances towards her. She refused and he drove off making further advances. Her reaction was to just get out the vehicle and she jumped out of a moving car to escape him. She suffered concussion, cuts and bruises.
Her actions were considered reasonable in the situation. He may not of been able to forsee or intended the possibility of her jumping out of the car and causing her harm, therefore he actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens.
But for the Defendant making sexual advances to the woman, she wouldn’t have jumped out of the car causing herself harm.

Medical intervention
Does refusal of medical treatment break the chain of causation? It does not break the chain.
Jordan [1956]: The Defendant stabbed the victim and was taken to hospital. He was given anti-biotics but had an allergic reaction. He was also given extensive amounts of intravenous liquids. He eventually died of pneumonia after admission to the hospital. His wounds were starting to heal. The victim died of poor medical treatment, not the stab wounds and the Defendant was not liable.

The above case of Jordan would not be followed today.

R v Cheshire [1991]: The Defendant shot a man in the stomach and thigh. He was operated on in hospital and developed breathing problems. The hospital gave him a tracheotomy. Weeks later his wounds started healing and no longer life threatening, but he continued to still have breathing problems but died from complication from the tracheotomy.
This did not break the chain of causation. The Defendant’s actions need to be the main cause of death. Medical negligence did not exclude the Defendants liability. Only in extreme cases would medical treatment, right or wrong, given in good faith be regarded as independent of the original injury.

Thin Skull Rule (Egg Shell Rule)
The thin skull rule covers both victim’s facility and weakness, and psychological makeup and beliefs. The Defendant must take their victim as they find them. This means you are fully liable for the consequences of a particularly vulnerable victim even if an ordinary person would not have suffered the same consequences.

The rule applies whether you are aware of the condition or not
R v Hayward [1908]: The Defendant chased his wife out of the house and was shouting threats at her. This caused her to flee and panic. She collapsed and died. The Defendant did not physically harm her but she was suffering from a rare thyroid problem which could lead to her death due to physical exertion and panic. Both the Defendant and his wife were unaware she had this condition.
The defendant was liable for constructive manslaughter, he did not know of the condition but you take your victim as you find them. He was liable despite the fact that a reasonable, ordinary person would not have suffered the same consequences.

The thin skull rule applies where medical treatment is refused.
Blaue [1976]: The Defendant stabbed an 18 year old and punctured her lung. She needed a blood transfusion to save her life. Due to her religious beliefs, she refused, and she died the next day.
You need to take your victim as you find them. In this case the wound was still an operative cause of death. The fact that she was a Jehovah’s Witness made the wound fatal. The Defendant was convicted of murder.

Fright or flight cases (escape)
R v Corbett [1996]: The Defendant and the victim were drunk and got involved in a fight. The Defendant assaulted the victim and the victim ran away. As he ran he fell into the gutter and was hit by a car. The unlawful act of the Defendant caused the death of the victim and he was guilty of manslaughter.

Circumstances and consequence
There are certain circumstances that surround the act to make it criminal.
Examples:
* Absence of consent in sexual activity * Being a parent and failing to provide * Bigamy * Taking something belonging to another

Certain crimes require particular harm to have been caused.
Example – Homicide: * Assault causing bodily harm * Destruction of property

Result/consequence crimes are those where the conduct itself is not criminal but the result of their action is. For example, throwing a stone. Throwing a stone is not an illegal offence, but if it hits a person it becomes a crime.

With consequence crime, the Crown Court must prove: * Consequence occurred AND * Conduct of the accused caused the consequence

State of Affairs
For state of affairs crimes the actus reus consists of ‘being’ rather than doing. For example being drunk in charge of a vehicle. State of affairs crimes include: * Possession of illegal drugs * Perjury, lying in court * Drunk whilst being in charge of a vehicle