Actus Reus - Lecture 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

A person accused of a crime (the D) will be prosecuted and if convicted will be punished (sentenced). The prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt otherwise the D will be found not guilty of the crime. For most crimes there are two elements which the prosecution must prove to es...

Description

Actus Reus 2012 A person accused of a crime (the D) will be prosecuted and if convicted will be punished (sentenced). The prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt otherwise the D will be found not guilty of the crime. For most crimes there are two elements which the prosecution must prove to establish criminal liability – Actus Reus (external elements) and Mens Rea (fault elements). Actus Reus – Smith & Hogan: ‘An Act, omission or other event indicated in the definition of the crime, with any surrounding circumstances (other than the D’s state of mind) and any required consequences of the act’. The Actus Reus consists of prohibited conduct (acts or omissions), prohibited circumstances, and/or prohibited consequences (result/causation). Acts: An Act is the most common form of Actus Reus. Some crimes specify a particular act in their definition and others do not, in which case, any act may be Actus Reus. Voluntariness: Whether the Actus Reus is committed by an Act or an Omission, it must be committed voluntarily. Conduct which is involuntary in law is conduct which is not subject to D’s conscious will. This may be because of an uncontrollable impulse as in Hill v Baxter (1958). State of Affairs (aka Situation Offences): This can amount to the Actus Reus where the existence of a certain state of affairs is forbidden by criminal law. A crime may be so defined that it can be committed although there is no ‘Act’ in the sense considered above. There may be no necessity for any ‘willed muscular movement’ – Larsonneur (1933) and Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983). Omissions: The common law traditionally prohibits acts and does not criminalise omissions. Therefore no liability will usually arise in relation to a failure to act. However, there are two exceptions where the law does prohibit certain omissions and these are:  Crimes which specify an omission in their definition (direct liability)  D is under a legal duty to act, either at common law or under statute (derivative liability) -

S.84 Companies Act 2006 S.25/S.6 Road Traffic Act 1972

1) Duty under contract – R v Pittwood (1992) 2) Duty because of relationship – R v Gibbons and Proctor (1918), R v Smith (1979) 3) Assumption of responsibility – R v Instan (1893), R v Stone and Dobinson (1977), R v Ruffell (2003), R v Evans (2009), R v Khan and Khan (1998), and Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) 4) A duty through ones official position – R v Dytham (1979) 5) A duty which arises because the D has set in motion a chain of events – R v Miller (1983), and DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2004)

1

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Actus Reus 2012 Causation: The D’s act or omission must cause the harm (the result) in order for guilt to be established. First, we must establish a chain of causation in fact between the D’s acts and the result. Secondly, that factual chain must also exist in law, and thirdly, it must not be broken by an intervening act. Establishing the chain of causation in fact: If the defendant is to be found guilty of a crime it must be shown that ‘but for’ the defendants actions the victim would not have been harmed – R v Pagett (1983) and R v White (1910). Establishing the chain of causation in law: The law is clear that if the D’s conduct was a cause, and that does not mean the only or even the main cause, he can be found to have the legal cause of the result R v Kimsey (1996). The defendant must also take his victim as he finds him – the Thin Skull Rule - R v Blaue (1975). Intervening Act (novus actus interveniens): There must be a direct link from the D’s conduct to the consequence. Even where it can be found that D caused the result in face and made ‘more than trifling’ contribution to the result, something might have occurred after the D’s act or omission, and before the result, which breaks the link between the D and the consequence. If that is the case, the D is not liable for the offence. A chain of causation can be broken by: A) Unpredictable event: If the unpredictable event/natural event was not reasonably foreseeable or is a major intervening act, it breaks the chain of causation. B) Third Party (Medical Treatment?): The free, deliberate, and informed act of a 3 rd party breaks the chain of causation. Has to be in itself so potent – R v Smith (1959), R v Cheshire (1991), R v Jordan (1956), and Environment Agency v Empress Car Co (1999). C) Victims own act: If the victim’s act was unreasonable or unforeseeable it breaks the chain of causation. Compare: R v Roberts (1971) and R v Williams and Davis (1992).

NB: Note the distinction drawn between definitional elements and defences – Albert v Lavin (1982) and Williams (Gladstone) (1984)/Beckford (1988).

2

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Actus Reus 2012 Cases CASENOTE

Hill v Baxter (1958) 1 QB 277

FACTS A man succeeded in driving a substantial distance before having an accident. He was charged with dangerous driving. He could not remember anything between a very early point of the journey and immediately after the accident. It was suggested (and accepted at first instance) that he was not conscious of what he was doing, and ‘that he was not capable of forming any intention as to his manner of driving’. The reason for this is because he succumbed to an unknown illness, and so was not able to control his actions. DECISIONS

Appeal Allowed

CASENOTE

R v Larsonneur (1933) 31 LGR 253

FACTS The defendant was a French national who had entered the UK lawfully, but was given only limited permission to remain in the country. At the end of that period the defendant left England, not to return to France, but to travel to the Irish Free State. The Irish authorities made a deportation order against her, and she was forcibly removed from Ireland and returned to the UK. On arrival in England the defendant was charged under the Aliens Order 1920, with "being found" in the UK whilst not having permission to enter the country. DECISIONS The defendant was convicted, and appealed on the basis that her return to the UK had not been of her own free will, in that she had been forcibly taken to England by the immigration authorities. Her appeal was dismissed on the simple basis that the prosecution had proved the facts necessary for a conviction.

CASENOTE

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)

FACTS The defendant had been admitted to hospital on a stretcher. Upon examination he was found to be drunk and was told to leave. Later he was found in a corridor of the hospital and the police were called to remove him. The police officers took the defendant outside onto the roadway, then placed him in a police car and drove him to the police station where he was charged with "being found drunk in a public highway". DECISIONS The D was convicted, and appealed on the ground that he had not been on the public road of his own volition. The conviction was upheld holding that all that was required for liability was that the D should be perceived to be drunk whilst on a public highway. There was no need for the court to have any regard as to how he came to be there. CASENOTE

3

R v Pittwood (1992) 19 TLR 37

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Actus Reus 2012 FACTS The defendant was employed as a gatekeeper at a railway crossing. One day he went for lunch leaving the gate open so that road traffic could cross the railway line. A hay cart crossing the line was hit by a train. One man was killed, another was seriously injured. DECISIONS Pittwood was convicted of manslaughter based on his failure to carry out his contractual duty to close the gate when a train approached.

CASENOTE

R v Gibbons and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134

FACTS

D (V’s father) and D2 (V’s stepmother) deliberately failed to feed V, who died.

DECISIONS D and D2 were both convicted of murder. D owed V as a parent, but also D2 owed a duty as she had assumed de facto (meaning in reality or as good as) parental responsibility.

CASENOTE

R v Smith (1979)

FACTS DECISIONS

CASENOTE

R v Instan (1893)

FACTS DECISIONS

CASENOTE

R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) 2 All ER 341

FACTS The defendants (common law husband and wife) were of low intelligence. One day they were visited by S's sister Fanny and took her in providing her with a bed but over the following weeks she became ill. She did not eat properly, developed bed sores, and eventually died of blood poisoning as a result of infection. The defendants had not obtained any medical assistance for Fanny although they had known that she was unwell. DECISIONS The defendants were convicted of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal held that the defendants had been under a common law duty to care for Fanny. This duty had arisen from their voluntarily assuming the responsibility for looking after her, knowing that she was relying on them. The defendants' failure to discharge this duty was the cause of the victim's death.

4

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Actus Reus 2012

CASENOTE

R v Ruffell (2003) 2 Cr App R (S) 53

FACTS D and V had each self-injected with drugs. When V showed signs of overdose, D tried to revive him and then left V outside his house. D telephoned V’s mother asking her to collect her son. V later died of hypothermia and opiate intoxication. DECISIONS D owed V a duty of care; he had assumed the duty when he tried to revive him, and breached it when he left him outside in the cold.

CASENOTE

R v Evans (2009) 1 WLR 1999

FACTS

D gave sister heroin. The sister self-administered it.

DECISIONS A duty arose when the D realised her sister overdosed and did not summon medical help. Lord Judge CJ held: ‘when a person has created or contributed to the creation of a state of affairs which he knows, or ought to reasonably to know, has become life threatening, a consequent duty on him to act by taking reasonable steps to save the others life will normally arise.

CASENOTE

R v Khan and Khan (1998) Crim LR 830

FACTS They were drug dealers and had not summoned assistance for V, a drug user, when she had fallen into a coma. DECISIONS Allowed D’s appeals against convictions for manslaughter as to impose a duty in such circumstances would add to the categories of recognised duties of care.

CASENOTE

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)

FACTS Tony Bland seriously injured in the Hillsborough disaster, was being kept alive only by extensive medical care (not a life-support machine). He had survived for three years in persistent vegetative state ( PVS). He continued to breathe normally, but was kept alive only by being fed through tubes. He had no chance of recovery; his doctors (with the support of his family) sought a declaration from the court that it would be lawful for them to discontinue treatment so that he might die peacefully. DECISIONS Treatment could properly be withdrawn in such circumstances, because the best interests of the patient did not involve him being kept alive at all costs.

5

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Actus Reus 2012 CASENOTE

R v Dytham (1979) 3 All ER 641

FACTS A uniformed police officer saw a man who was being kicked to death. He took no steps to intervene and drove away when it was over. DECISIONS He was convicted of the common law offence of misconduct in a public office as he had neglected to act to protect the victim or apprehend the victim.

CASENOTE

R v Miller (1983) 1 All ER 978

FACTS D, a squatter, fell asleep smoking a cigarette. When he woke up, he realised a fire had started but did not extinguish it or summon help (merely moved to the next room). DECISIONS House of Lords held that even when the original conduct was inadvertent, when D subsequently became aware of the danger he had caused, he was under a duty to prevent or reduce the risk by his own efforts, or if necessary by summoning the fire brigade.

CASENOTE

DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2004) Crim LR 471

FACTS D injured a woman police officer by allowing her to search him, knowing he had hypodermic needles in his pockets which stabbed her. D denied having any needles or sharps when asked. DECISIONS Where someone created a danger and thereby exposed another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, there was an evidential basis for the A ctus Reus of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. D had “created a danger by an act … that act was a continuing act”. The risk of injury was foreseeable.

CASENOTE

R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279

FACTS D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed policeman. The girlfriend was shot by a policeman and killed. DECISIONS The D was found guilty of manslaughter. She would not have died ‘but for’ his actions (holding her out as a shield).

CASENOTE

R v White (1910) 2 KB 124

FACTS The defendant put potassium cyanide into a drink for his mother with intent to murder her. She was found dead shortly afterwards with the glass, three-quarters full, beside her. The medical evidence showed that she had died, not of poison, but of heart failure.

6

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Actus Reus 2012 DECISIONS The defendant was acquitted of murder and convicted of an attempt to murder. Although the consequence which the defendant intended occurred, he did not cause it to occur and there was no Actus Reus of murder (chain of causation broken).

CASENOTE

R v Kimsey (1996) Crim LR 35

FACTS D was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. He and V had been racing each other in their cars at very high speed. Their cars collided and V’s car spun out of control and was hit by an oncoming car. DECISIONS Upheld the judge’s direction that the jury could find D had caused V’s death even if they were not sure that D’s driving ‘was the principle, or a substantial, cause of the death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there was something more than a slight or a trifling link’.

CASENOTE

R v Blaue (1975) 1 WLR 1411

FACTS The victim of wounding declined, on religious grounds, a blood transfusion which would have saved her life. DECISIONS This did not break the casual connection between the act of wounding and death. D was not entitled to claim that the victim’s refusal of medical treatment because of her religious beliefs was unreasonable.

CASENOTE

R v Smith (1959)

FACTS A soldier stabbed another in his lung. The V was dropped from the stretcher twice on the way to medical help. Staff gave him artificial respiration by pressing on his chest, of which made the injuries 75% worse. DECISIONS D was found guilty of murder. Stabbing was the ‘operating and substantial cause of death’.

CASENOTE

R v Cheshire (1991)

FACTS D shot victim in thigh and stomach. Given a tracheotomy but died from rare complications of the tracheotomy. DECISIONS The D was still held liable for the death because the D. made a significant contribution to the cause of death.

7

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Actus Reus 2012 CASENOTE

R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152

FACTS D stabbed victim in stomach but was recovering from his wounds in hospital until mistakenly given an antibiotic from which he suffered an allergic reaction and died. DECISIONS Actions of the second doctor were held to be of an intervening act, which caused the death and the D was found not guilty of murder.

CASENOTE

Environment Agency v Empress Car Co (1999) 2 AC 22

FACTS The D company stored diesel in a tank which had an unlocked tap on it. The tap was opened by a person unknown and the entire contents ran down the drain into the river. The charge was causing pollution and the issue was whether the act of the unknown person broke the chain of causation. DECISIONS House of Lords held the principle was not whether the 3rd party’s act was free, deliberate, and informed but whether it was something normal (which it was) or something extraordinary (which it was not). Company’s appeal was dismissed.

CASENOTE

R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 279

FACTS

Girl jumped from car in order to escape from sexual advances.

DECISIONS Roberts lost his appeal as the actions of the victim did not break the chain of causation because they were foreseeable.

CASENOTE

R v Williams and Davis (1992)

FACTS A hitch-hiker jumped from a car and died from head injuries. It was claimed to prevent an attempt to steal his wallet. DECISIONS The D was held not to be guilty. The V’s reaction was unreasonable and broke the chain of causation. The V’s conduct must be proportionate to the threat.

CASENOTE

Albert v Lavin (1982)

FACTS D assaulted V mistakenly believing that he was defending himself. In fact, D’s attacker was a police officer trying to arrest D.

8

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Actus Reus 2012 DECISIONS ‘Unlawfulness’ was an aspect of the defence and not an element of the definition of assault.

CASENOTE

Williams (Gladstone) (1984) - Beckford (1988) followed!

FACTS D assaulted V mistakenly believing that he was defending a 3rd party. In fact the 3rd party was being arrested. DECISIONS

9

Held ‘unlawful’ was part of the Actus Reus of assault.

Criminal Law – Year 2!...