Actus Reus Notes Essay Example for Free

Actus Reus Notes EssayProvides a link between the initial act of the D and the prohibited instant that has occurred. It forms part of the AR It is non enough that the prohibited consequences has occurred, it must be caused by the D. * Established by a two-stage test 1. Factual causation lvirtuoso(prenominal) basis, establish a prelimartary connection between act and consequences Ds act must be a sine qua non of the prohibited consequence(consequences would not start out occurred without the Ds action) But for the Ds action, the consequences would not have occurred Case White D wanted to kill her mother with a poisonous substance drink moreover the mother die before the poison drink took effect. LP The Ds mother would have died anyway solely for Ds action, thus he is not the factual cause of demise, but he is charged with assay murder. 2. Legal causation Chooses the blameworthy a. Case Pagett To avoid arrest, D used his girlfriend as a shield and firmed at armed police. T he police fired back and killed the girl.LP Ds act need not to be the sole cause of death yieldd it is a cause that has contributed significantly to the result as he sets in motion the ambit of events that led to death and it was foreseeable that the police would fire back. D is the most blameworthy Intervening Act Something that occurs aft(prenominal) the Ds act that breaks the chain of causation and relieves the Ds responsibility for the prohibited consequences. Circumstances will only break the chain of causation if they are a) An overwhelming cause of death b) An unforeseeable fact Case that BREAK the chainJordan D stabbed the victim and his wound was healed by the time V arrived to the hospital but he died following an hypersensitised reaction to the drugs given by the hospital. LP D not liable as the original wound was healed and the treatment was PALPABLY WRONG (Obvious) to break the chain of causation. Case that DOESNT BREAK the chain Cheshire D shot the victim in the l eg and stomach, where when in hospital V suffered from respiratory complications and die after an operation that the hospital performed a poor standard of care and failed to recognise his wounds.LP The need for operation flowed from the Ds original act thus he remained liable, the treatment 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 3. Naturally Occurring events 1. Acts of the Victim Roberts D interfered the Vs clothing in the car, causing the V to jump from the moving vehicle and resulted in serious injuries from the fall.LP It was foreseeable that the victim would have attempted to escape and could be injured in doing so. Chain of causation will only be broken if the Vs action is extreme and unforeseeable. * only EXTREME ACTS would break it? Consider Thin-Skull order *Thin-Skull Rule EXCEPTION to the rule that D is only liable to the foreseeable consequences of his acti ons D is liable for the full tip of Vs injuries even if, due to some pre-exisitng condition, the V suffers greater harm as a result of the Ds action than the modal(a) V would suffer.Cases Blaue D stabbed the V and punctured her lung, but V refused a blood transfusion as it was contrary to her religion, resulting in death. LP D convicted of manslaughter as it was held that the rule was not limited to physical conditions but included an individuals psychological make-up and beliefs. 2. Act of Third Parties Consider 1. Significance of their contribution 2. motion is foreseeable? 3. Naturally-occurring events * Omissions Liability only necessary if there is no culpable positive act.Statute A duty of act only imposed by statute in a narrow range 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 under contract will be liable for the harmful consequences of his chas tening to perform his contractual obligation. This duty extends to those reasonably affected by omission, not just the other party to the contract. Special relationship Case Gibbins and ProcotorFirst D(Father) failed to provide food to his child who was starved to death. His liability was based upon his omission to fulfil the duty established by the special relationship of father/child. (The case go along) Voluntary assumption of care Second D(Partner of the father) liable not based on the nature of relationship but because she had previously fed the child but had ceased to do so. * A Person cannot cast off duty to act that the voluntary assumption of care imposes.Dangerous situation Case Miller D fell asleep while smoking a cigarette. It triggers the mat on fire, but when the D woke up he did nothing to save the fire but move to another spot to sleep. The House was damaged as a result. D argued that his mens rea was not developed at the time the actua reas of the event, dropping t he cigarette, occurred. LP D has created a dangerous situation which he then has the duty to save the fire. * MR arises and coincides with continuing AR. He was liable.