Summary
Summary Criminal Law - Actus Reus
- Module
- Criminal Law (LU1005)
- Institution
- City University (City)
The Elements of a Crime Definitions of Murder Omission Liability Duty to Act Causation
[Show more]
Content preview
ACTUS REUSThe Elements of a Crime:
Each crime in criminal law has a definition, so that we know what can do and what we shouldn’t do to
avoid committing an offence
Not all crimes require MR
Not all crimes require a circumstance of some kind
Not all crimes require a result
ALL crimes require an AR…but
Not all crimes require ‘something done’
Actus Reus: guilty act or ‘external Conduct or omission (failing to do something)
element’ – what happens around us Circumstance
that we can see Result - EG: murder requires a result – a dead person – if not there
is no murder
[causation]
Mens Rea: guilty mind or ‘internal Mental element - EG: intent, recklessness, negligence
element’ – what was going on in the
mind of the D in that moment
Elements of criminal conviction:
What needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt for a successful conviction?
- AR + MR – NO defences = liability
Criminal defence lawyer role = cast reasonable doubt on any one of the above elements
Actus Reus
Conduct or Many crimes can be committed by conduct or omission - EG: murder
Omission Many crimes are committed through a failure to do something - EG: failure to
Element: file tax, neglecting a baby
Crimes that don’t require conduct: possession offences, state of affairs
offences - EG: Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983 – being found drunk on the
highway
Circumstances: Some crimes require a particular circumstance to exist – it is the
circumstance that makes the AR criminal (with MR) - EG: theft – property
belonging to another, sexual offences – intercourse without consent
Age of criminal responsibility = 10, below 10 you’re are not held responsible
for your actions
Other reason why someone would not be fit to stand trial – mental capacity
(if they don’t understand what’s going on in the world) – can appeal to the
court
Result: With some crimes, the conduct has to cause a certain result
EG: assault occasioning actual bodily harm
EG: murder must result in a dead person
EG: Causing criminal damage must result in damage
Definition of Murder:
The Unlawful Killing of Another Human Being Under the Queen’s Peace with intent to kill of cause
grievous bodily harm
- Of another human being, under the Queen’s peace = Circumstance
- Intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm = MR
- Killing = result
Omission liability:
Omission = failure to act
Offences are capable of commission by omission such as:
- Homicide (Murder and Manslaughter offences):
o Gibbins v Proctor, a man and a woman were convicted of murder on the basis of their omission to
feed the man’s child (V). They had a duty to feed the child and they breach that duty and acted with
the intention to cause serious harm, satisfying the MR of murder.
- Non-Fatal offences against the Person:
, o Santana Bermundez 2004 – D misinformed a police officer that he did not have any needles, and
was therefore liable when the officer (V) was pricked during the personal search.
- Property offences:
o Miller 1983 – D was convicted of arson when he accidently started a fire and didn’t act to try and
put it out or call for help.
A reluctance to impose liability for omission to act because practical difficulty and individual
autonomy
EG: in France duty to rescue; duty to prevent a crime (if reasonably possible) – NOT in UK
There can be liability where there is a:
1. Recognised offence (an offence capable of being committed by omission).
2. A duty to act.
3. And a breach of that duty (that caused the result).
‘an offence capable of commission by omission’?
- EG: failing to provide a breath test
- EG: murder – Gibbins and Proctor 1918 – didn’t feed child which resulted in her death
- EG: non-fatal offences against the person – Santana Bermudez 2004 – he was stopped by police who
wanted to search him, before doing so they asked if he had ay sharp objects in his pockets, he said no,
police office pricked herself with the needle in his pocket
- EG: property offence – Miller 1983– smoker who smoker before bed, fell asleep while smoking and
cigarette fell and started a fire, he woke up and moved to the next room to sleep
- There are growing trends towards greater acceptance of omission liability
Duty to Act?
Not the same as Duty of Care (Tort Law)
Situations where there is a Duty to Act:
Statutory/ The Road Traffic Act 1988 – makes it an offence to fail (or omit) to report a
offence specific motor accident in which D is involved.
duties to act
R v Dytham 1979 - (common law) - D (A police officer) was charged with misconduct
in public office when, while on duty, he failed to intervene in an incident in which V was
kicked to death by a nightclub bouncer. – ‘misconduct in public office’ creates a clear duty
for public officials to act in a reasonable manner
Contractual R v Pittwood 1902 – Pittwood sat in a hut and it was his job to open/close gates to
duties to act railroad – Pittwood went for lunch and left gates closed, train ran through gate and into a
car. – he had a responsibility to act which he breached which resulted in the train driver’s
death
Familial duties Gibbins and Proctor 1918 (parent – child) – duty to look after them)
to act
R v Hood 2004 (between married people) – duty to look after each other – Hood’s
wife fell and broke her bones, took Hood 3 weeks to get her help and she ended up dying –
breached duty as a husband
R v Stone and Dobinson 1977 (siblings) – sister was ill and stone and Dobinson
didn’t take care of her and she ended up dying
Duty based on R v Nicholls 1874 – where the promise of care is explicit – Nicholls said to daughter
voluntary to leave your child with me and I will look after her = assumed care, but didn’t take care of
assumption of her
care
R v Instan 1893 – where the promise of care is implicit – a younger niece moved in
with an elderly aunt, aunt fell ill, niece didn’t do anything about it and the woman died
Duty arising R v Miller 1983 – awareness – be aware that you created that situation so that you can
from the creation do something about it
of a dangerous
situation R v Evans 2009 – when D knew or should have realised – a drug dealer, gave his
half-sister a syringe of heroine that she injected, she became ill and died – he should have
known the risk of using that drug and that she could die – Evans was held to have created a
dangerous situation because he provided the drugs and then failed to do anything when she
became unconscious
Breach of Duty to Act:
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller fgms. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £6.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now