...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...
Words: 2546 - Pages: 11
...legal causation is established in criminal law it is first necessary to understand that legal causation is an element of the actus reus (the guilty act prohibited by law) that needs to be satisfied before a person can be convicted of an offence. This essay will consider how factual and legal causation can be established in regards to acts and omissions before discussing the views of Brett and Waller concerning the fairness of legal causation in situations such as refusing medical treatment and careless driving. For a person to be convicted for an offence the prosecution will establish firstly whether the person has committed the actus reus, secondly, the persons state of mind at the time of offence such as intent or recklessness (mens rea) and lastly whether the defendant has a valid defence such as self defence. To establish the actus reus of an offence the courts will consider the guilty act, the circumstances at the time of the act and the consequences of that act. These are commonly defined within statute relating to the particular offence, for example, the actus reus of criminal damage is defined in s.1(1) of Criminal Damage Act 1971 as “a person who, without lawful excuse destroys or damages property belonging to another”. Criminal damage requires a consequence from an action making it a result crime; therefore the prosecution would have to show that the defendants conduct had caused a consequence that is prohibited by criminal law, this is known as causation. Causation...
Words: 1592 - Pages: 7
...QUESTION. “The law tampers with the But for test of causation as its peril.” -Lord Brown; Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd (2011) The Bust for test of causation is said to be fraught with difficulties. How has the law developed to overcome these difficulties? INTRODUCTION Negligence in the law of tort is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably straight person would exercise in such like circumstances. In tort law, this area of negligence involves harm caused by carelessness and not by intention. The tort of negligence structures a standout amongst the most element and quickly changing zones of obligation in the present day law. Its rise in the 20th century shows the pressure of the social and economic changes on the traditional ways of legal redress for interference with protected interests. The reasonable structure of carelessness is very adaptable and fit for general application. These components have permitted the courts to use the tort in the setting of novel cases for pay. On the other hand, the development of carelessness has not supported the extension of risk and throughout the years, courts have been putting a few limitations on this degree. The tort of carelessness does not right now appear to be set upon some foreordained way of growth as it once had all the earmarks of being. The modern history of tort law started with the groundbreaking judgment of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson where Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend...
Words: 4638 - Pages: 19
...Murder assignment Offence The offence in question is murder, stated in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11 that any person who commits murder shall be guilty of an offence and shall be imprisoned for life . Conduct elements Conduct Element (Actus Rea) Voluntariness Voluntariness of the accused is the fundamental element that forms the Actus Rea of a crime. In order to determine whether A was in control of his physical actions, the death-causing Act must be recognised. As shown in Ryan v R the death causing action can consist of multiple acts . There was a series of death causing acts in this case – the relevant acts performed by A are the initial arrow wound to the shoulder and then the main death-causing act (according to medical evidence) the head collision with the concrete curb. My opinion is that of all the actions together showed the voluntariness was the “complex of acts” all performed by the accused. I do not have enough information relating to A’s sobriety however it does not indicate that he was under the influence of any alcohol or drugs. In this situation the defence would be arguing his actions were a response of automatism. Due to the fact that A claimed in the police statement that ‘when pulling back the bowstring I lost my balance, the dirt just gave out and I slipped and in doing so reached out reflexively to brace the fall. To rebut I would be more incline to follow the judgment of Murry v R, similar to this case the defendant fully...
Words: 1124 - Pages: 5
...This report will consider the offence of corporate manslaughter in relation to the prosecution of Junkshift Ltd. It will assess the two elements of the Crown Prosecution Service Full Code Test contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Firstly, it will assess the individual elements of the offence and establish whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction according to the evidential test. Secondly, it will evaluate whether the prosecution would be in the public interest. If both these elements are satisfied then the case will proceed to court. The offence of Corporate Manslaughter is governed by Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. This was introduced due to various problems with the previous law on corporate liability....
Words: 2638 - Pages: 11
...that the defendant pushed victim of the stairs and got seriously injured and because of this the victim unfortunately had a serious reaction from the drugs that she was supplied with and had died because of this and this shows us that the actus reus is satisfied. Furthermore the law of causation is that but for the defendants...
Words: 1149 - Pages: 5
...of the House of Lords’ decision in Kennedy (No.2) [2007] UKHL 38 on the law relating to causation.’ This essay requires us to take a critical stand vis-à-vis the development of the law in relation to the issue of causation, as developed by the case of Kennedy (No.2). It will argue that the ratio given in Kennedy (No.2) is still good law, but there are certain situations where the supplier can be found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. Kennedy falls within the scope of the analysis surrounding the Actus Reus element of a crime. Actus Reus is the first step that needs to be considered before establishing criminal liability. This step requires an action, an inaction (omission) or a state of affairs to occur. This action/ inaction should be voluntarily undertaken and the conduct must be linked directly to the consequences that follow (i.e. Causation). Liability for inaction (omission) is difficult to establish, usually because it is challenging to prove a direct causal link between the act of omission and the consequences that occurred. This is because the general rule is that ‘you are not your brother’s keeper’ (you shall bare no responsibility for the actions of another). However, there are certain situations where there is a positive duty to act (ex. if the defendant created the dangerous situation or if there is a certain special relationship between the defendant and the claimant). For causation to be established, a factual and legal analysis needs to be undertaken...
Words: 1228 - Pages: 5
...Miller HSA 515 Health Care Policy, Law, and Ethics October 31, 2014 Legal Aspects of U. S. Health Care System Administration In the United States health care administration, there are lots of health laws, such as federal, state and local. The administrator will need to know these laws, because they will be interacting with top professionals at all levels. The health administrator is new to Well Care Hospital, and the hospital for the past six months has been under scrutiny for breach of medical compliance. It is important that the top administrator be concerned about the importance of his or her conduct within the health care setting; compromise the boundaries of ethics and medical conduct. This paper will also discuss the four elements required of a plaintiff, to prove medical negligence and the duties of the health care governing board in mitigating the effects of medical non-compliance, as they apply to the rules of practice set forth in the Well Care Hospital governing board manifesto. As the top health administrator, professional conduct is very important. The staff is to conduct themselves likewise. There is no room for a lot of playing around, because patients, family members, hospital directors, and the administrators are depending on each and everyone to set their difference aside, and be the professional they are. According to Wolper (2004), Biases in the provision of medical services created by provider economic...
Words: 1232 - Pages: 5
...INTRODUCTION LAW FOUNDATION LAW AND … 1. LOGIC 2. SCIENCE 3. THEORY 4. SOCIAL PROBLEMS LAW FOUNDATION Critical = informed and logical Responsible = social equity Creative = independent and considered Interrelations -- with other disciplines and institutions Historical, philosophical, economic, political and social context == acquaintance with historical development of theory Contemporary social issues: · Terrorism · Refugees · Crime and punishment Historical context John Locke? Karl Marx? LOGIC What is wrong with this statement? In the war on terror, you are either with us or against us Which of the following is sound? All men have hair I have hair Therefore I am a man All men have hair I am a man Therefore I have hair Logic definitions Logic = science that evaluates arguments Argument = group of statements, with premises claimed to support conclusions [also inference] Statement = sentence that is either true or false [also proposition] Premise = statement setting forth reasons or evidence Conclusion = statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply Arguments and non-arguments Arguments must have a factual claim and an inferential claim. The following are not arguments: · warnings or advice · belief or opinion · loosely associated statements · factual reports · explanations · illustrations · conditional statements Deduction and induction ...
Words: 2057 - Pages: 9
...Critically Evaluate the Law in the areas of Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter and include the consideration of possible reforms. Homicide, in English criminal law is a generic term covering offences such as murder, manslaughter and death by dangerous driving. What they all have in common is the unlawful killing of a human being, and what distinguishes them is the state of mind of the defendant who has caused the death or the defences available to them. According to Coke's classic definition, Murder is when a man of sound memory and of an age of discretion unlawfully killed within the any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura (the person) under the King's peace with malice afore thought either expressed by the party or implied by law. [So as the party wounded etc die of the wound or hurt, etc within a year and a day of the same]. Coke's definition should not be read literally and it is neither accurate or helpful. For instance, any person can be found guilty of murder and the year and a day rule was abolished by S1 law Reform Act 1996. The reference to 'malice afore thought' this suggests some element of planning and ill will on the part of the murder when in truth it can be spontaneous and the law requires no evidence of ill will. From the outset it should be started that a few centuries of Jurisprudence and the odd statutory intervention such fundamental terms as causation & intention let alone when does life begin and end should have been well matured...
Words: 3343 - Pages: 14
...4.1 Apply the elements of the tort of negligence and defences in different business situations Tort is described as an action which causes harm to a person. It is also a law that protects an individual from any harm that may be caused by the unreasonable actions of another. Tort of negligence is considered the unintentional tort. Negligent torts are actions that violated the standard duty of care that caused an unexpected or unintended injury to a person. In negligent tort claims, there are four elements that must be proven by the claimant: a duty to care, the breach of duty, consequential harm, and legal causation or remoteness. * Duty to care: Everyone has a legal duty of care to all. This means that a person shouldn’t do anything reckless that may result to the harm of another. For example, a doctor has a duty to care for his patients by giving them the right treatment and prescribing the appropriate and safe medication. Duty of care in Donaghue -v- Stevenson 1932 was defined as exercising such care as is due in such 'acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure persons so directly affected that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation' and Caparo Industries -v- Dickman 1990 referred also to situations in which it would be fair, just, and reasonable to impose. * Breach of duty: The breach of duty happens when a person fails to exercise a reasonable standard of care to another. He may have intentionally or unintentionally...
Words: 874 - Pages: 4
...Tort Law Case I. The fireman car accident The fireman’s car was driving at a very high speed. This excess of speed was ordered by his supervisor. The car ahead, under the pressure of the fireman’s car had become agitated and by trying to make room for the fire engine, collided with a lamp post. The driver of this car had no security belt. We have to see if the fireman is liable. To be liable, three things are needed : a damage, a fact, a causation between them. According to the principle of tort law, article 1:101 of European Principle of Tort Law, (the strict liability) as soon as the victim proved that he suffers a damage, it’s needed to have compensation. Is there a damage ? Peter has collided and had to be took to the emergency. Based on article 2:102 (2) of European Principle of Tort Law, a bodily integrity enjoys the most extensive protection. If no serious hurt had been seen, we can assume that it exists a little traumatism or maybe a light physical damage and therefore this is a bodily damage. A damage exists, so the victim, Peter, doesn’t have to prove a fault, according to the strict liability principle. We need to identify the fact. By driving too fast, with the flashing lights, with the bell sounding, the fireman put a pressure on Peter who panicked and by trying to make room for the fireman, he collided with a lamp post. Are the fact and the damage in relation ? To identify the factual causes, we utilize the “but...
Words: 2588 - Pages: 11
...Torts II Outline DUTY Medical Malpractice • Professional Standard of Care (Medical) o SOC: Doctors must meet the standard of care of an ordinary prudent physician that must have and use the knowledge and skill of a member of the profession in good standing. ▪ Does it help or hurt doctors? • Does impose burden → Must have knowledge, info and use • Does help → lesser standard or care → refers to only what doctors do ▪ How is it different than reasonable SOC? • (1) Must have expert testimony to establish SOC o Must be relevant to what doctors do ▪ Cannot give % of risk of conduct or “What I would do” ▪ Will not get to jury o Exception → Do not need expert testimony for things apparent to laymen or gross negligence • (2) Custom Sets Standard → Different than T.J. Hooper where Custom does not set standard → Only way to prove is with expert testimony ▪ “HONEST MISTAKE” • Disfavored → Few will instruct jury of “honest mistake” • Some courts do not admit apologies as evidence o Locality Rules (3 Approaches → Split of Authority→ Minority Approach) ▪ (1) Local SOC → Used to be generally → The expert must know the SOC in their exact locality ▪ (2) Modified Locality SOC → The testimony is sufficient if the expert knows the SOC that is same or similar to locality in which the practitioner practices → General rule but not for specialist. ▪ (3) National Locality SOC → Every practitioner held...
Words: 1009 - Pages: 5
...STAGE ONE: IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUES APPARENT I have been asked to advise my client as to his/her prospect regarding. The relevant material facts contained in the excerpt provided include……… From initial viewing of the hypothetical facts I propose that there are numerous legal issues contained: STAGE 2: IDENTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL RULES I assert that the relevant rules that apply are found in the law of torts(with specific identification to the tort of negligence, a tort that emerged as of primary importance as per the landmark decision in the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562.) and statutory provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) which have been enacted to either clarify or modify the common law rules that determine liability for negligence. As a broadly conceived scope, the underlying principle of negligence is that a defendant may be liable in a wide range of circumstances for failure to take reasonable care which causes harm to a plaintiff’ protected interests. Now, wrongful or careless behaviour is not always actionable in negligence. The defendant will only be liable if the plaintiff can prove that three essential requirements are satisfied: Three essential requirements that must be satisfied in order to establish liability in negligence: (a) That the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care * Pre – existing relationship will create a duty of care. OR * “Neighbour principle”...
Words: 1916 - Pages: 8
...In today’s health care, there are laws set in place to protect the well-being and best interest of the patient. These laws range from tort laws, criminal laws, and contract laws. Although each of these laws are set in place to protect the patient to a certain degree of wrongdoing on the physicians and medical facilities part, they can be distinguished by which one affects health care professionals directly compared to indirectly. In this paper, I will discuss the Tort Law, the law that most directly influences Health Care Professionals. Tort Law Defined Tort Law can be defined as the civil wrongdoing against a person. Tort warrants claimants to seek restitution for their alleged disservice for bodily harm, effects, or character. In order to file a tort claim, the claim has to be factual or true by the party that suffered the disservice. Medical personnel and facilities can receive jail time and/or malpractice claims if found guilty of such negligence as described in the tort claim. According the Congressional Budget Office (2006), “The system has twin objectives: deterring negligent behavior on the part of providers and compensating claimants for losses (including medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering) they incur as the result of an injury that occurs because of negligence” (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7174/04-28-MedicalMalpractice.pdf ). Torts can be divided into categories, such as negligence and intentional torts. Negligence is the most common tort...
Words: 1334 - Pages: 6
