Outcome D: Application of the key elements of crime and sentencing in non-fatal
offences
Actus Reus- The Physical Act
Voluntary Actions-
Act or omission must be done voluntarily by the defendant if not then they haven't committed
the actus reus.
Hill-V-Baxter (1958)
State of Affairs-
Defendant hasn't acted voluntarily but has nonetheless been convicted of a crime, these
offences are ‘being’ rather than ‘doing’.
Larsonneur (1933)
Winzar (1983)
Omission-
A failure to act results in someone being found criminally liable in English Law.
You are criminally liable for an omission where there is a:
1. Duty created by Statute
- Road Traffic Act 1988 for failing to provide a breath specimen when required.
- Children and young persons act 1933 for failing to send a child to school.
2. Contractual duty to act
- Imposed by a contract
- Pittwood (1902)
3. Duty imposed by official position
- Guilty of misconduct e.g police officer
- Dytham (1979)
4. Voluntary acceptance of responsibility for another
- Stone and Dobinson (1977)
5. Special Relationship
- Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
- Khan (1998)
6. Creation of a dangerous situation
- Defendant has set in motion a chain of events and failed to deal with them
- Miller (1983)
- Santana-Bermudez (2003)
, Causation-
Must be a direct link between the defendant’s actions to the consequence this is known as the
chain of causation.
The prosecution must show that:
- The defendant's actions were the factual cause of that consequence.
- The defendant’s actions were in law the cause of that consequence.
- There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.
Factual Causation-
Defendants can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ their
actions.
White (1910)
Dalloway (1847)
Pagett (1983)
Legal Causation-
There may be more than one person whose acts may have contributed to the consequence.
The defendant can still be guilty regardless of if their actions were not the only cause of the
consequence.
The ‘de minimis rule’ states that the defendant’s actions must be more than minimal cause, but
doesn't need to be the substantial cause.
Smith (1959)
Kimsey (1996)
The ‘Thin Skull Test’ states that the defendant must take the victim as they find them.
Blaue (1975)
Intervening Acts-
Acts that break the chain of causation must be independent of the defendant's actions.
These acts can be:
- An act of a third party
- The victim's own act
- A natural or unpredictable event
Robert (1971)
Marjoram (2000)
William (1992)
offences
Actus Reus- The Physical Act
Voluntary Actions-
Act or omission must be done voluntarily by the defendant if not then they haven't committed
the actus reus.
Hill-V-Baxter (1958)
State of Affairs-
Defendant hasn't acted voluntarily but has nonetheless been convicted of a crime, these
offences are ‘being’ rather than ‘doing’.
Larsonneur (1933)
Winzar (1983)
Omission-
A failure to act results in someone being found criminally liable in English Law.
You are criminally liable for an omission where there is a:
1. Duty created by Statute
- Road Traffic Act 1988 for failing to provide a breath specimen when required.
- Children and young persons act 1933 for failing to send a child to school.
2. Contractual duty to act
- Imposed by a contract
- Pittwood (1902)
3. Duty imposed by official position
- Guilty of misconduct e.g police officer
- Dytham (1979)
4. Voluntary acceptance of responsibility for another
- Stone and Dobinson (1977)
5. Special Relationship
- Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
- Khan (1998)
6. Creation of a dangerous situation
- Defendant has set in motion a chain of events and failed to deal with them
- Miller (1983)
- Santana-Bermudez (2003)
, Causation-
Must be a direct link between the defendant’s actions to the consequence this is known as the
chain of causation.
The prosecution must show that:
- The defendant's actions were the factual cause of that consequence.
- The defendant’s actions were in law the cause of that consequence.
- There was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation.
Factual Causation-
Defendants can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ their
actions.
White (1910)
Dalloway (1847)
Pagett (1983)
Legal Causation-
There may be more than one person whose acts may have contributed to the consequence.
The defendant can still be guilty regardless of if their actions were not the only cause of the
consequence.
The ‘de minimis rule’ states that the defendant’s actions must be more than minimal cause, but
doesn't need to be the substantial cause.
Smith (1959)
Kimsey (1996)
The ‘Thin Skull Test’ states that the defendant must take the victim as they find them.
Blaue (1975)
Intervening Acts-
Acts that break the chain of causation must be independent of the defendant's actions.
These acts can be:
- An act of a third party
- The victim's own act
- A natural or unpredictable event
Robert (1971)
Marjoram (2000)
William (1992)
