MATT ROLLINSON

ACTUS REUS
LECTURE
 BASIC STRUCTURE OF SERIOUS CRIMINAL
OFFENCES
Actus Reus + Mens Rea – Defence = Culpability

Prohibited External Blameworthiness/Fault Justification or

Element
Excuse
• Intention
• Conduct • Recklessness • General – e.g. Self
• Consequence (Result) • Knowledge Defence
• State of Affairs • Negligence • Specific – e.g. Loss
• Circumstance • Dishonesty of Control
• Omission
• Conduct – e.g. – Dangerous Driving – does not need to result in
a bad outcome;

• Consequence (Result) – e.g. – Homicide – Death;

• State of Affairs – e.g – Being drunk on the highway; Being an

illegal alien – designation is unlawful;

• Omission – Failing to prevent something when under a duty;

• Circumstances – Lack of consent; Property belonging to

another
Question: Why have the requirement of Actus Reus?

Answer: We don’t punish people for bad thoughts alone

There needs to be some external manifestation – prohibited external

‘situation’, ‘Event’, ‘Result’.

– sometimes this can be very little, such as:

• The meeting of minds in conspiracy or;

• Making a false representation in fraud.
Most Offences we look at are result crimes – whether by omission or commission.
Result crimes require the prosecution to establish a causal relationship between the
act/omission of the D and the prohibited result

TWO ISSUES

Multiple Causes:

D’s act/omission contributed to the prohibited result – but so did other things -
concurrently or consecutively.

Intervening Acts (Novus actus interveniens):

• Acts of the Victim

• Acts or omissions of 3rd Parties
• Acts of nature
 PRINCIPLES OF CAUSATION
NB: A set of principles applied on a case by case basis
 Factual Causation

D’s act/omission needs to be a ‘but for’ cause

That is, if the D changed their behaviour, would the result have differed (not
happened)? – if yes – but for cause established.

White [1910] 2 KB 124

Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273

Note – Factual causation is good at initially recognising a causal connection

between D and the result – but is too broad.
 Legal Causation

Principles in meeting the issues raised by causation – Narrowing culpability.

NB: Legal & Policy factors play a major role

Questions of Fact for the jury

Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 at 290:

“It is for the judge to direct the jury … in the most simple terms, in accordance with
the legal principles which they have to apply. It would then fall to the jury to decide
the relevant factual issues which, identified with reference to those legal principles,
will lead to the conclusion whether or not the prosecution have established the guilt
of the accused of the crime of which he is charged.”
 Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690

Para 64. ‘…though an assessment has to be made in the overall scheme of things of the causative
significance of intervening acts or events, the all-important question on legal causation remains whether
“the accused’s acts can fairly be said to have made a significant contribution to the victim’s death”. It would
be idle to pretend there is complete consistency in the principles that have been applied by the courts to
determine causation issues when they have arisen.’

Para 86: ‘This is a question of fact that you should answer using your collective common sense. Ask yourself:

• Was D’s act a significant and operating cause of death? The injuries do not need to be the only cause of
death but they must play more than a minimal part in causing death.

Consider all the circumstances, including the nature and extent of injuries, the passage of time, and
intervening events.

If your answer is yes,

• Was the result reasonably foreseeable’

Significant – Doesn’t take alot!

Kimsey [1996] Crim LR 35

Something more than slight or trifling – more than de minimis.

R v Hennigan [1971] Cr App R 262

TJ direction that D not guilty if <1/5th to blame was a misdirection – D’s

contribution must be more than minute.
 Act of V

Roberts (1972) 56 Cr App R 95 – Reasonably foreseeable, or so daft no reasonable person could foresee it?

Williams and Davis [1992] 2 All ER 183

• V’s response must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat - within the range of responses expected from a
victim placed in his situation, bearing in mind:

 Any particular characteristic of V – (Female/17yrs old/sister)

 In the agony of the moment V might act without thought or deliberation.

R v Marjoram[2000] Crim LR 372 (CA) – Reasonable person need not be the same age and sex as D.

Kennedy (No 2) [2008] 1 AC 269 – Chain broken by Free, deliberate, and informed acts.

R v Rebelo [2021] EWCA Crim 306– in considering if voluntary – consider whether V was acting under any compulsion
– mental health – psychological addiction so as vulnerability impairs voluntariness. Consider whether V knew the
risks she was taking in considering whether informed.

R v Field[2021] EWCA Crim 380 – and not consequent upon deception

 3rd Parties

R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 at 43 – Need not be sole or main cause – substantial and operating Cf: Wallace.

R v Benge (1865) 4 F&F 504 – Multiple causes D’s act need not be sole cause but must be more than
minimal.

R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670: Need not be sole or main cause. Cf: R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152

R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 – Not Involuntary acts of 3rd parties. Cf: Kennedy (No 2) [2008] 1 AC
269

R v Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690 – Significant; Reasonably foreseeable.

R v A [2018] EWCA Crim 690 – Reasonable foreseeability does not mean the particular circumstances
(details) or ‘exact form’ of the potentially intervening act are foreseeable.
 The Egg-Shell/Thin Skull Rule:

D Must Take The Victim as S/He finds Him/Her

R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692

Physical

R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411

In mind as well as in body

The End…