The actus reus is the physical and external part of a crime. It means the guilty act. The actus reus must be a positive and voluntary act as illustrated in the case of Hill vs Baxter. In this case the judge said that driving whilst fighting off a swarm of bees would prevent the act from being voluntary, therefore preventing the actus reus from being satisfied. If the actus reus of a crime is not satisfied the defendant can never be found guilty.
However there are six situations where a failure to act (omission) will satisfy the actus reus of a crime. These are exceptions to the rule in Hill v Baxter that the act committed must be positive. A person will have a duty to act if they assume the duty voluntarily, as illustrated in Stone v Dobinson, where the defendants failed to provide adequate care for their aunt when they said they would look after her.
Pittwood illustrates that a contract can require a person to act, in this case the defendant failed to shut a gate, causing death, which he was required to under contract. In Miller the defendant created a dangerous situation and satisfied the actus reus of a crime as he did not take any steps to extinguish a fire which he created. In Dytham the policeman held an official position, which required him to act, therefore he was guilty of misconduct when he failed to act while someone got kicked to death. Gibbins v Proctor illustrates that parents have a duty to feed their child due to their relationship. The final situation where someone can be guilty for a failure to act is an Act of Parliament is wear an Act of Parliament says someone must act, as illustrated by the Road Traffic Act 1988 which says people must wear a seatbelt and the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which says that parents have a positive obligation to look after their
