Actus reus is often described as the ‘guilty act’ or ‘conduct element’ of an offence but is more

correctly described as all the external elements of the offence. In other words, everything apart from
the defendant’s state of mind. All offences have an actus reus. The actus reus covers all external
elements of an offence, going far beyond its common characterisation as a ‘guilty act’. In criminal
cases, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed a guilty act and had a guilty mind
at the same time.

 There must usually be a positive act act before liability may be incurred;
 Omissions can amount to actus reus in certain duty situations;
 You must consider the principles of causation;
 Factors may also affect the chain of causation

An actus reus consists of more than just an act. It also consists of the circumstances and
consequences required for the offence in question - i.e all the elements of an offence other than the
mental element.

VOLUNTARY
The accused's conduct must be "voluntary" or "freely willed" if he is to incur liability. It may be
involuntary for a variety of reasons:

Automatism occurs where the defendant performs a physical act but is unaware of what he is doing,
or is not in control of his actions, because of some external factor

R v Quick [1973] 3 All ER 347, where the defendant took an injection of insulin and had a blackout
during which he assaulted the victim.

Sometimes people can respond to something with a spontaneous reflex action over which they have
no control. The classic example is that given in Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 All ER 193, of someone being
stung by a swarm of bees while driving, and losing control of the car.

The conduct may be involuntary if it is physically forced by someone else, in which case there will be
no actus reus, eg, Leicester v Pearson [1952] 2 All ER 71, where the defendant's car was forced onto
a pedestrian crossing after being bumped by the driver behind.

STATE OF AFFAIRS CASES (ABSOLUTE LIABILITY OFFENCES)

One group of cases which cannot be discussed in terms of voluntary acts are often referred to as the
"state of affairs" cases. These crimes are defined not in the sense of the defendant doing a positive
act but consisting in the defendant "being found", "being in possession" or "being in charge" etc. In
cases all the prosecution needs to prove are the existence of the factual circumstances which
constitute the crime - the existence of the state of affairs.

OMISSION

The general rule is that there can be no liability for failing to act, unless at the time of the failure to
act the defendant was under a legal duty to take positive action.

The difference between positive acts and omissions was highlighted in the Airedale NHS Trust v
Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821, where the House of Lords held that euthanasia by means of positive steps
to end a patient's life, such as administering a drug to bring about his death, is unlawful.

However, withdrawing medical treatment, including artificial feeding, from an insensate patient with
no hope of recovery when it was known that the result would be that the patient would soon die, is
lawful if it was in the patient's best interests not to prolong his life.

A positive duty to act exists in the following circumstances:

(a) DUTY ARISING FROM STATUTE

Liability for failing to act will be imposed where the defendant can be shown to have been under a
statutory duty to take positive action.

See: the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which creates the offence of willfully neglecting a
child. Hence by simply failing to provide food for the child, or failing to obtain appropriate medical
care, a parent could be held criminally liable for any harm that results.
Also see: the Road Traffic Act 1988 which creates the offences of failing to provide a specimen when
required to do so and failing to give a correct name and address when required to do so.

(b) DUTY ARISING FROM A CONTRACT

Where a person is under a positive duty to act because of his obligations under a contract, his failure
to perform the contractual duty in question can form the basis of criminal liability.

See: R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37.

A gatekeeper of a railway crossing opened the gate to let a car through and forgot to shut it when he
went off to lunch. As a result a hay cart crossed the line while a train was approaching and was hit,
causing a number of deaths the gatekeeper was convicted of manslaughter.

(c) PUBLIC DUTY

A person in a public office may be under a public duty to care for others.

See: R v Dytham [1979] 3 All ER 641.

A police officer witnessed the death of a night clubber but took no action to help.

(d) VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY/RELIANCE

There is a common law duty of care where there is a relationship of reliance between defendant and
victim. Thus if someone voluntarily assumes responsibility for another person then they also assume
the positive duty to act for the general welfare of that person and may be liable for omissions which
prove fatal.

See: R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341.

Stone's sister Fanny lived with him and his girlfriend, Dobinson. Fanny was mentally ill and became
very anxious about putting on weight. She stopped eating properly and became bed ridden. The Ds
made hearted and unsuccessful attempts to get medical help and after several weeks she died.

They were both convicted of manslaughter and appealed. The Court of Appeal held that they had
accepted responsibility for Fanny as her careers, and were under a duty to summon help, or care for
her themselves. As they were liable for her death.

(e) DUTY DUE TO DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CONDUCT

If the defendant accidentally commits an act that causes harm, and subsequently becomes aware of
the danger he has created, there arises a duty to act reasonably to avert that danger.

See: R v Miller[1983] 1 All ER 978.

D was squatting in a building. He lay on a mattress, lit a cigarette and fell asleep. Sometime later he
awoke to find the mattress on fire. Making no attempt to put the fire out, he simply moved to the
next room and went back to sleep. The fire caused £800 damage. The Ds failure to act to put out the
fire was treated by the courts as sufficient for the actus reus of arson.
CAUSATION

When the definition of an actus reus requires the occurrence of certain consequences, the
prosecution must prove that it was the defendant's conduct which caused that result to occur. For
example, in murder the prosecution must prove that the victim died; in section 18 of the offences
Against the Person Act 1861 that the victim was wounded or caused grievous bodily harm; and in
criminal damage that the property was destroyed or damaged. There are two types of causation:

(a) Causation in Fact, for which the "But For" Test is used.

See: R v White [1910] 2 KB 124.

In this case the accused put cyanide in his mother’s drink intending to kill her.The mother drank
about one quarter of the drink, She was later found dead and medical evidence showed that she had
died of heart failure not of cyanide poisoning. Apply the ‘but for’ test to this case and decide
whether or not the accused’s actions were the factual cause of the death.

(b) Causation in Law, if there is a possible novus actus interveniens (new intervening act) then a
test for legal causation is used. There are various tests for this, eg:

The defendant was the “operating and substantial cause” test from Smith where the defendant
stabbed the victim but the victim was dropped on the way to the medical hut, not treated
immediately and eventually given bad treatment. Despite this, the defendant was guilty of murder
as he was the operating and substantial cause of death (loss of blood).

The following incidents will not break the chain of causation in law:

Physical characteristics of the victim, eg, Hayward where the defendant shouted at and chased after
his wife who then collapsed and died of a medical condition. The defendant was guilty of
manslaughter using the “thin skull” rule. It did not matter that no one else would have had such a
condition.

Refusal of medical treatment, eg, Blaue where the defendant stabbed a Jehovah’s Witness who then
refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds and died. The defendant was guilty of manslaughter
and the court held that the actions of the victim could not be described as unreasonable.

Natural consequences of D’s actions, eg, Pagett who used a woman as a human shield and shot at
the police. The police fired back and the woman was killed in the crossfire. It was held that the
instinctive, reasonable actions of the police by way of self-defence did not break the chain of
causation.