2. Criminal Law Lecture 2: Elements of Crime. Actus Reus
By Feruza Bobokulova

3. Elements of a Crime
A person cannot usually be found guilty of a criminal offence unless two elements are present: an actus reus, Latin for a guilty act, and mens rea, a Latin for guilty mind
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind
The definition of a particular crime, either in statute or under common law, will contain the required actus reus and mens rea for the offence
The prosecution has to prove both of these elements so that the magistrates or jury are justified beyond reasonable doubt of their existence

4. Elements of a Crime
If this is not done, the person will be acquitted as in English law all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty – Woolmington v DPP (1935)
Each crime must be looked at individually to determine what must be proved to establish its actus reus
In the case of a common law crime (murder) the definition of its actus reus is to be found in the decision of the courts
In the case of a statutory crime (theft) the definition of the actus reus is to be found in the statute as interpreted judicially in decided cases

5. Actus Reus
An actus reus can consist of more than just an act: it comprises all the elements of the offence other than the state of mind of the defendant
Depending on the offence, this may include the circumstances in which it was committed and/or the consequences of what was done
For example, the crime of rape requires unlawful sexual relationship by a man with a person without their consent. The lack of a consent is a surrounding circumstance, which exists independently of the accused’s act

6. Actus Reus
Similarly, the same act may be part of the actus reus of different crimes depending on its consequences
Stabbing someone for example may form the actus reus of murder if the victim dies or of causing grievous bodily hard (GBH) if the victim survives
The accused’s behavior is the same in both cases, but the consequences of it dictate whether the actus reus of murder or GBH has been committed

7. Conduct must be Voluntary
If the accused is to be found guilty of a crime, his or her behavior in committing the actus reus must have been made voluntary
Behavior will usually only be considered involuntary where the accused was not in control of his or her own body (when the defence of insanity or automatism may be available) or where there is extremely strong pressure from someone else such as a threat that the accused will be killed if he/she does not commit a particular offence (when the defence of duress may be available)

8. State of affairs crimes Result crimes Omissions
Types of Actus Reus
Crimes can be divided into 4 types depending on the nature of their actus reus:
Action crimes
State of affairs crimes
Result crimes
Omissions

9. Action Crimes
The actus reus in this type of crimes is simply an act, the consequence of that act being immaterial
For example, perjury is committed whenever someone makes a statement, which they do not believe to be true while on oath
Whether or not that statement makes a difference to the trial is not important to whether the offence of perjury has been committed

10. State of Affairs Crimes
Here the actus reus consists of circumstances and sometimes consequences, but no acts – they are ‘being’ rather than ‘doing’ offences
The offence committed in R v Larsonneur is an example of this, where the actus reus consisted of being a foreigner who had not been given permission to come to Britain and was found in the country

11. Result Crimes
The actus reus of these is distinguished by the fact that the accused’s behavior must produce a particular result – the most obvious being murder, where the accused’s act must cause the death of a human being
Result crimes raise the issue of causation: the result must be proved to have been caused by the defendant’s act
The issue of causation is for the jury to decide
In simplifying causation for the jury, the judge may refer to the two principles of causation namely that an accused can only be convicted if they are satisfied that his conduct was both a factual cause and a legal cause of the victim’s death

12. Result Crimes: Causation
Factual Causation
The accused’s conduct must be a sine qua non of the prohibited consequence. In other words, it must be established that the consequence would not have occurred as and when it did but for the accused’s conduct
In White (1910), D put cyanide into his mother’s drink with intent to kill her. Later his mother was found dead with the glass containing the poisoned drink beside her 3 parts full. Medical evidence established that she had died of heart failure and not from poisoning. D was acquitted of murder as he had not caused her death and thus, there was no actus reus. He was, however, convicted of attempted murder

13. Result Crimes: Causation
Legal Causation
The fact that factual causation is established, however, does not mean that legal causation can be established
Therefore, not all factual causes are legal causes of an event
Legal causation is closely connected to the ideas of responsibility and culpability

14. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Consequence must be attributable to a culpable act
If the culpable act the accused performed did not contribute to the consequence, the legal causation will not be established
Thus, although D may have been grossly negligent in performing an act, he will not be held responsible for a prohibited consequence, which would have occurred whether or not he was negligent

15. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Consequence must be a more than a minimum cause of the consequence
In homicide, the accused’s act may be considered a cause of death if it has accelerated the victim’s death
It is no answer to a charge of murder to say that the victim was dying from a fatal disease or injury and would have died within a short time had the accused not hastened his death
If, however, the accused’s act produces only very trivial acceleration of the death of the victim, it may be ignored.

16. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Consequence must be a more than a minimum cause of the consequence
In such circumstances a jury would presumably not find causation as their moral reaction would be that the doctor was seeking to relieve pain and only incidentally accelerated the patient’s death
If, however, the pain relieving drugs were administered not by a doctor, but by the sole beneficiary under her will and were administered to hasten the inheritance, one could assume that a jury would exhibit a different moral reaction and would find causation

17. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Culpable act need not be the sole cause
The act of the accused need be neither the sole, nor the main cause of the prohibited consequence
Other causes contributing to the consequence may be the acts of others or even of the deceased himself
1.1 The actions of third parties
1.2 The actions of the victim

18. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
The accused must take his victim as he find him
The accused cannot complain if his victim is particularly susceptible to physical injury, where, f.e., he suffers from brittle bones; if death ensues from an injury, which would not have been fatal in a person of sound health, it will still be attributable to the accused
Parke J in Martin (1832): “It is said that the deceased was in a bad state of health; but that is perfectly immaterial”

19. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
The accused must take his victim as he finds him
The accused will be liable even though he does not physically assault the victim, if he so frightens the victim that a pre-existing condition is aggreviated resulting in death
In Hayward (1908), D, who was in a state of violent excitement, was heard to express his intention of ‘giving his wife something’ when she returned from home. When she did so, an argument ensued and D chased her from the house using violent threats.

20. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
The accused must take his victim as he finds him
She collapsed in the road and died. Medical evidence was given that she was suffering from an abnormal condition such that any combination of fright or strong emotion and physical exertion might cause death
The judge directed the jury that no proof of actual physical violence was necessary, but the death from fright alone, caused by an illegal act such as threats or violence, would be sufficient

21. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
The accused must take his victim as he finds him
The principle that the accused must take his victim as he find him is not limited to consequences flowing from pre-existing medical or physiological conditions; it has been extended to cover the victim’s mental condition or religious beliefs

22. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Intervening events and acts
Between the initial act or omission of the accused, which sets in motion the range of events, which result in the prohibited consequence occurring, other events or acts may intervene
The question arises whether such an event or act amounts to a new act, which intervenes to break the chain of causation
The general principle is that an intervention by a third party will constitute a new act

23. Intervening events and acts
Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Intervening events and acts
Medical treatment
Neglect by the victim
Naturally occurring events
Intervention by a third party

24. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Intervening events and acts
Medical Treatment
Where the accused inflicts an injury upon his victim, which requires medical treatment, is he to be held liable if that treatment is improper or negligent?
In Jordan (1956), D stabbed V who was taken to hospital and wound was stitched. 8 days later the V died. D was convicted of murder. On appeal, fresh evidence was called, which disclosed that at the time of death the wound was healed, but D had died as the result of (a) injection to which he had shown intolerance in the previous administration of it and (b) large quantities of liquid, which had caused V’s lungs to become waterlogged.
The treatment was described as ‘wrong’ and CA quashed the conviction

25. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Intervening events and acts
Medical Treatment
Where the medical treatment is negligent, but the wound is still operating, it would seem that both the perpetrator of the wound and the doctor treating it could be said to have caused the death
In such a situation, however, there would be little likelihood of prosecution for manslaughter being brought against the doctor
Where, however, the wound has healed and negligent treatment independently caused death, a prosecution of the doctor may ensue

26. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Intervening events and acts
Medical Treatment
Only in rare cases where a positive treatment is given, medical negligence will supervene to become an independent cause of death rendering the accused’s act insignificant
Examples might be where poison is administered in mistake for a drug or drug is administered in an excessive quantity resulting in an overdose, or medical staff continue to administer a drug to which V has displayed intolerance and V dies as a result or an unnecessary operation is performed in the course of which V dies

27. Intervening events and acts
Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Intervening events and acts
Medical Treatment
If however, due to misdiagnosis treatment, which could have been effectual if administered is not given and V dies, the death can still be linked directly to D’s original act
If there is negligence in the treatment of the V, f.e., the doctor operating to save his life makes a mistake and V dies during the operation, D’s acts will remain a cause of death because had D not done any harm to V, no medical treatment would have been required

28. Result Crimes: Legal Causation
Intervening events and acts
Neglect by the victim
If the V mistreats or neglects to treat the injuries perpetrated by the accused, this will not prevent legal attribution of responsibility to the accused where death results
In Wall (1802), the governor of the colony was convicted of murder of a soldier, who he had sentenced to an illegal flogging of 800 lashes although the solder aggravated his condition by drinking spirits while in hospital
The reasonableness of the V’s conduct is not relevant issue when considering causation. It would seem that the accused also has to accept the V’s phobias, irrationality, or stupidity

29. Omissions
Criminal liability is rarely imposed for true omissions at common law
There are also situations where the accused has a duty to act and in these cases there may be liability for a true omission
There are three situations where the question of an act or omission arises: continuing acts, supervening fault, and euthanasia

30. Continuing Acts
The concept of continuing acts was used in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) to allow what seemed to be an omission to be treated as an act
The defendant was told by a police officer to park his car close to the kerb; he obeyed the order, but in doing so he accidentally drove his car on the constable’s foot. The constable shouted, “Get off, you are on my foot”. The defendant replied, “F…. You, you can wait” and turned off the ignition. He was convicted of assaulting the constable in the execution of his duty. The offence requires an act; an omission is not sufficient.

31. Continuing Acts
The defendant appealed on the grounds that at the time he committed the act of driving on the officer’s foot, he lacked mens rea and though he had mens rea when he refused to remove the car, this was an omission and the actus reus required an act. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that driving on to the officer’s foot and staying there was one single continuous act, rather than an act followed by an omission. So long as the defendant had the mens rea at some point during that continuing act, he was liable

32. Supervening Fault
A person, who is aware that he or she has acted in a way that has endangered another’s life or property and does nothing to prevent the relevant harm occurring, may be criminally liable without the original act being treated as the actus reus of the crime
The significance of this principle is that it can impose liability on defendants who do not have mens rea when they commit the original act, but do have it at the point when they fail to act to prevent the harm they have caused

33. Supervening Fault
This was the case in R v Miller (1982). The defendant was equating in a building. He lay on a mattress, lit a cigarette and feel asleep. Some time later, he woke up to find the mattress on fire. Making no attempt to put the fire out, he simply moved into the next room and went back to sleep. The house suffered serious damage in the subsequent fire. Miller was convicted of arson. As the fire was his fault, the court was prepared to treat the actus reus of the offence as being his original act of dropping the cigarette

34. Euthanasia
Euthanasia is the name given to the practice of helping severely ill people to die, either at their request or by taking the decision that life support should be withdrawn when the person is no longer capable of making that decision. In some countries, euthanasia is legal

35. Offences Capable of Being Committed by Omission
Where the conduct in question is genuinely an omission, the next question is whether the particular offence can in law be committed by omission. This depends on the definition of the offence
Some of the offences committed have been defined always to require an act; some can be committed by either an act or an omission. Murder can be committed by omission, but assault cannot

36. Offences Capable of Being Committed by Omission
An example of the offence of murder being committed by an omission is R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
In this case a man and a woman were living together with the man’s daughter. They failed to give the child food and she died. The judge directed that they were guilty of murder if they withheld food with intent to cause her grievous bodily harm, as a result of which she died. Their conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal

37. A Duty to Act
Where the offence is capable in law of being committed by an omission, it can only be committed by a person who was under a duty to act (in other words, a duty not to commit that omission)
This is because English law places no general duty on people to help each other or save each other from harm
Thus, if a man sees a boy drowning in a lake, it is arguable that under English criminal law the man is under no duty to save him and can walk past without incurring criminal liability for the child’s subsequent death
A duty to act will only be imposed where there is some kind of relationship between the two people or the closer the relationship, the more likely it is that a duty to act will exist

38. A Duty to Act: Special Relationship
Special relationships tend to be implied between members of the same family. An obvious example of a special relationship giving rise to a duty to act is that of parents to their children
In R v Lave (1973), a father failed to call a doctor when his nine-week-old baby became ill. He had a duty to act, though on the facts he lacked the mens rea of an offence partly because he was of low intelligence

39. A Duty to Act: Voluntary Acceptance of Responsibility for another
People may choose to take on responsibility for another. They will then have a duty to act to protect that person if the person falls into difficulty
In Gibbins and Proctor, the man paid the woman to buy food for the family. They did not feed the child and the child died of starvation. The woman was found to have voluntarily accepted responsibility for the child and was liable along with the child’s father for murder

40. A Duty to Act: Contract A contract may give rise to a duty to act
This duty can extend not just for the benefit of the parties to the contract, but also to those, who are not party to the contract, but are likely to be injured by failure to perform it
In R v Pittwood (1902), a gatekeeper of a railway crossing opened the gate to let a car through and then forgot to shut it when he went off to lunch. As a result, a haycart crossed the line while a train was approaching and was hit causing the driver’s death. The gatekeeper was convicted of manslaughter

41. A Duty to Act: Statute
Under S 20 of the Terrorism Act 2000, if information comes to the attention of the D in the course of his trade, profession, business or employment giving rise to a belief or suspicion that another person has committed one of a range of offences under the Act, D commits an offence if he does not disclose his belief or suspicion and the information on which it is based to the police as soon as it is reasonably practicable

42. A Duty to Act: Defendant Created a Dangerous Situation
Where a defendant has created a dangerous situation, they are under a duty to act to remedy this. This duty was illustrated in R v Miller

43. Termination of the Duty
The duty to act will terminate when the special relationship ends, so a parent for example, stops having a duty to act once the child is grown up

44. Reading Materials
Allen, M., Textbook on Criminal Law, 7th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, C. and Quinn, F., Criminal Law, 5th edn. Essex: Pearson Education.
Martin, J. and Storey, T., Unlocking Criminal Law, 4th edn. Oxon: Routledge.

45. Thank You for your Attention!