Actus Reus Notes

Provides a hyperlink between the preliminary act of the D and the prohibited consequence that has occurred. It forms a half of the AR: It isn’t enough that the prohibited penalties has occurred, it should be brought on by the D. * Established by a two-stage check: 1. Factual causation: Only basis, establish a prelimartary connection between act and penalties D’s act must be a sine qua non of the prohibited consequence(consequences wouldn’t have occurred without the D’s action) ’But for’ the D’s action, the results wouldn’t have occurred Case: White :

Don’t waste time Get a verified expert to help you with Essay

D needed to kill her mother with a poison drink but the mother die before the poison drink took impact.

LP: The D’s mother would have died anyway however for D’s motion, thus he is not the factual explanation for death, however he’s charged with tried homicide. 2. Legal causation: Chooses the blameworthy a. Case: Pagett To keep away from arrest, D used his girlfriend as a protect and firmed at armed police.

The police fired back and killed the woman.

LP: D’s act want to not be the only explanation for dying provided it’s a cause that has ‘contributed significantly to the result’ as he sets in movement the chain of events that led to death and it was foreseeable that the police would hearth again. D is probably the most blameworthy Intervening Act: Something that occurs after the D’s act that breaks the chain of causation and relieves the D’s responsibility for the prohibited penalties.

Circumstances will solely break the chain of causation if they are: a) An overwhelming reason for dying b) An unforeseeable occurrence Case that BREAK the chain:

Jordan: D stabbed the sufferer and his wound was healed by the point V arrived to the hospital but he died following an allergic response to the medication given by the hospital. LP: D not liable as the unique wound was healed and the therapy was ‘PALPABLY WRONG’ (Obvious) to interrupt the chain of causation. Case that DOESN’T BREAK the chain: Cheshire: D shot the sufferer within the leg and stomach, where when in hospital V suffered from respiratory complications and die after an operation that the hospital carried out a poor commonplace of care and didn’t recognise his wounds.

LP: The want for operation flowed from the D’s original act thus he remained liable, the remedy has to be ‘PALPABLY WRONG’ (obvious) to break the chain of causation. Intervening Act falls into 3 categories: 1. Acts of the Victim 2. Acts of Third Parties three. Naturally Occurring occasions 1. Acts of the Victim Roberts: D interfered the V’s clothing in the automotive, causing the V to leap from the shifting car and resulted in critical injuries from the fall.

LP: It was foreseeable that the sufferer would have attempted to flee and could be injured in doing so. Chain of causation will only be damaged if the V’s motion is extreme and unforeseeable. *Only EXTREME ACTS would break it? Consider Thin-Skull rule: *Thin-Skull Rule: EXCEPTION to the rule that D is simply liable to the foreseeable consequences of his actions D is liable for the full extent of V’s injuries even when, because of some pre-exisitng situation, the V suffers higher hurt on account of the D’s action than the ‘ordinary’ V would undergo.

Cases: Blaue D stabbed the V and punctured her lung, however V refused a blood transfusion because it was contrary to her religion, resulting in dying. LP: D convicted of manslaughter because it was held that the rule was not limited to bodily circumstances however included an individual’s psychological make-up and beliefs. 2. Act of Third Parties Consider: 1. Significance of their contribution 2. Action is foreseeable? three. Naturally-occurring occasions * Omissions: Liability solely essential if there isn’t a culpable constructive act.

Statute: A responsibility of act only imposed by statute in a slender vary Contract: Case: Pittwood D contracted to monitor the crossing gates so no one is harmed by the train. He failed to close the gates and V was killed by the train. LP: A person underneath contract shall be liable for the dangerous penalties of his failure to perform his contractual obligation. This obligation extends to those fairly affected by omission, not simply the opposite celebration to the contract. Special relationship Case: Gibbins and Procotor

First D(Father) failed to offer food to his child who was starved to dying. His liability was based mostly upon his omission to fulfil the obligation established by the particular relationship of father/child. (The case continued:) Voluntary assumption of care Second D(Partner of the father): liable not based mostly on the nature of relationship however as a end result of she had previously fed the child but had ceased to do so. * A Person can’t solid off responsibility to act that the voluntary assumption of care imposes.

Dangerous situation Case: Miller D fell asleep whereas smoking a cigarette. It triggers the mat on hearth, however when the D awoke he did nothing to avoid wasting the fireplace however move to a different spot to sleep. The House was damaged as a result. D argued that his mens rea was not developed on the time the actua reas of the event, dropping the cigarette, occurred. LP: D has created a harmful situation which he then has the duty to save the fire. * MR arises and coincides with continuing AR. He was liable.