9084 · 2.1.1
Actus reus flashcards
Revision flashcards for Cambridge 9084 Actus reus (syllabus 2.1.1). Flip, recall, then mark a real past-paper question.
Card
Actus reus?
Guilty act — conduct, circumstances, or result required by the offence definition.
Card
Voluntary act (Hill v Baxter)?
Reflex or automatism (e.g. bee sting while driving) is not a voluntary act — no actus reus.
Card
When is an omission criminal?
Only where a legal duty exists — statute, contract, relationship, voluntary assumption, dangerous situation created.
Card
Factual causation?
But-for test — would the result have occurred anyway? (R v White — poisoned milk but victim died of heart attack).
Card
Legal causation?
D's act must be more than minimal cause — 'operating and substantial' (R v Smith); not broken by thin skull victim.
Card
Novus actus interveniens?
New intervening act breaking chain — e.g. victim's unreasonable escape (Roberts) vs medical negligence (Jordan, rare).
Card
What are the three forms the actus reus can take?
1. A positive voluntary act (a commission). 2. An omission where a legal duty to act exists. 3. A state of affairs (e.g., being in charge of a vehicle while over the alcohol limit).
Card
What is the 'but for' test for factual causation, and which case established it?
The test asks: 'But for the defendant's conduct, would the prohibited consequence have occurred?' It was established in the case of *R v White* (1910).
Card
Name three of the six recognised situations where a legal duty to act arises, creating liability for an omission.
Any three of: 1. Statutory duty, 2. Contractual duty (*R v Pittwood*), 3. Duty from a relationship (*R v Gibbins and Proctor*), 4. Voluntary assumption of care (*R v Stone and Dobinson*), 5. Creation of a dangerous situation (*R v Miller*), 6. Duty through one's public office (*R v Dytham*).
Card
What is the 'thin skull' rule in legal causation?
The defendant must take their victim as they find them. This means any pre-existing weakness, vulnerability, or belief of the victim does not break the chain of causation. The key case is *R v Blaue* (1975).
Card
How did the court in *Thabo Meli v R* [1954] solve the problem of the actus reus and mens rea not coinciding?
The court applied the 'transaction theory', treating the defendants' actions (hitting the victim and then throwing him off a cliff) as a single, continuous transaction. The mens rea to kill, formed at the beginning, was held to cover the entire series of acts.
Card
What is a 'state of affairs' crime?
A crime where the actus reus is simply 'being' in a certain situation or state, rather than committing an act. For example, being in charge of a vehicle while over the alcohol limit (s.4 Road Traffic Act 1988) or being an illegal immigrant found in the UK (*R v Larsonneur*).
Card
What is the 'continuing act' principle?
A principle where the actus reus is treated as ongoing. If the defendant develops the mens rea at any point during this continuing act, the two coincide, and liability is established. The key case is *Fagan v MPC*.
Card
How can a third party's act break the chain of causation?
A free, deliberate, and informed act of a third party which is not a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions will break the chain of causation. See *R v Pagett*, where the police officer's act was not free but a reaction to being fired upon.
Card
What is the 'de minimis' principle in legal causation?
The defendant's contribution to the result must be more than minimal, slight, or trifling. It doesn't have to be the main cause, just not insignificant. The case of *R v Kimsey* [1996] approved the phrase 'more than a slight or trifling link'.