Actus Reus

Physical Element of a crime.

It can be:

• An act
• An omission
• A state of affairs

Act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant.

No control over actions - not committed the actus reus AUTOMATISM 

Case Hill v Baxter (automatism) 

• defendant crashed into another car - Dangerous Driving
• claimed to be sub consciouse driving - involuntary

• where the defendant has been convicted through he did not act voluntary 

Case: R v Larsonneur

• D is a french woman deported against her will from Ireland to England and was immediatly charged as an illegal alien, despite the fact she had not voluntarty come to England.

Case: Winzar

• D was a drunk man taken by the police fro  a hospital to the road. Found guilty of being drunk on a motor way although he wasnt there voluntarily. 

A failure to act cant usually make a person guilty. Exceptions allowing omission to be the actus reus is where there is a duty to act, this has 6 ways of happening:

• 1) a statutory duty
• 2) a contractual duty - lifeguard
• 3) a duty because of a relationship - parent and child
• 4) duty taken on voluntarity - elderly sibling living with you
• 5) a duty through ones official position - police man witness a fight
• 6) a duty arisen due to the defendan has set in motion a chain of events

Involuntary manslaughter:

unlawful act manslaughter cannot be committed by an omission - must be an act

gross negligence manslaughter can be committed by an omission

When  consequence must be proven to find D guilty the prosecution has to show that:

• Defendants conduct was the factual cause of the consequence
• Defendants conduct was the in law cause of the consequence
• There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation

• The consequence would not have happend 'but for' the defendants conduct.

Case: Pagett (1983)

used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield in a police shoot out, police shot back at the man and the girl was killed, Pagett convicted of manslaighter as she would not have died 'but for' D using her as a shield.

Case: White (1910)

D put cyanide in his mums drink intending to kill. she died of a heart attack before she could drink it. D did'nt cause her death, not guilty of murder but attempted murder. 

• May be more than one person whose act may have contributed to the consequence
• D can be guilty if there conduct must be more that a minimum cause 

Thin Skull Rule

• Take the victim as he finds him
• If the victim has something unusual about them eg a thin skull meaning an injury is more seriouse D is liable for the more seriouse injury.
• Punch a man with a thin skull which would cause brusing on a 'normal person' more serious - D is liable. 

Case: Balue

Young woman stabbed, JW so wouldnt have a blood transfusion as so died, D guilty because he had to take his victim as he found them.

• must be a direct link from defendants conduct to the consequence
• if something eles haooend after the defendants act or omission and is sufficiently separate from the defendants conduct - break the chain

Intervening Act: sufficiently independant and serious

• act of a third party
• victims own act
• natural but unpredictable event

Example: D injured V and V is taken to hospital in an ambulance. On the way the ambulance is in a crash and V gets seriouse injuries and dies. Major intervering act defendant not liable for Vs death. 

Victim's Own Act:

• D causes V to react in a forseeable way, injury of V is caused by D
• V reaction is unreasonable may break the chain

Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain unless:

• it is so independant of the defendants acts
• in itself so potent in causing death
• defendants acts are insignificant

Case: Smith (1959) - 2 soldiers had a fight, 1 was stabbed. V carried to a medical centre and staff gave artificial respiration (pressed on his chest) injury worsened and he died. D was still guilty of Vs death as the wound was the overwhelming cause of death.

Case: Cheshire (1991) - D shot V in thigh and stomach. Given a tracheotomy (help him breath) died from rare complications not spotted be doctor. D still liable

Case: Jordan (1956) - V stabbed in stomach. Allergic reaction to antibiotics given - died. Actions of doctors were the intervening act causing death. D not guilty