P1
Actus Reus is the guilty act such as the action or conduct which is an element of a crime.
There are types of actus reus such as result crime, conduct crime and omission. Result
crime is where the consequence of the crime is required to form actus reus such as murder.
Conduct crime is where doing the crime is adequate enough for actus reus. Omission is the
failure to act which can result in a crime however, it only applies when there is a ‘duty to act’.
There are different types to where there is a duty to act for example, duty arising from: a
special relationship; contractual obligation, public office, voluntary acceptance; and from
starting a dangerous situation. Duty of Act does not apply in Britain as we do not have the
Good Samaritan Law so there is no duty of care owed to strangers. One example of an
omission is the “R v Miller (1983)” case. This was an example of creating a dangerous
situation. This was where the defendant had been drinking in the evening and went back
home and fell asleep. However, he had a lighted cigarette in his hand. He woke up during
the night and realised that the cigarette started a fire and instead of trying to put out the fire
or calling the fire brigade he decided to go sleep in another in room. The defendant created
a dangerous situation and had a responsibility to call the fire brigade upon becoming
conscious of the fire so he was then liable for his omission to do anything.
Causation is where the defendant’s act is sufficient enough to be the cause of the victim’s
death or harm. Prosecutors must prove that someone death was caused by the defendant
act for example a victim dies from a stab wound from the defendant however it gets more
complicated when there is more than one cause of death. This is where causation is used to
determine who is guilty of the crime. Factual causation is where the prosecutor must prove
the test to establish causation. This basically mean that the cause of death must be without
an event occurring which could make the defendant innocent. One example is the “White
and Pagett case”. This is where the men separated from his wife and had a relationship with
a 16-year-old, made her pregnant and then she broke up with him due to him being violent
towards her. The men didn’t take the break up well and shot the girl’s father in her leg,
threatened the mother at gun point, kidnap the girl and his mother, kicked the girl’s mother
out of the car and took the girl hostage at a flat to where police followed them. He then
walked along a balcony using the girl as a shield and fired shots at the police to which they
shot back. As, the police couldn’t see the figure clearly they shot the girl who unfortunately
died. The man was charged with possession of a firearm, kidnapping, attempted murder on
the father and police officers and manslaughter of the girl. However, he appealed against the
manslaughter on the issue of causation. However, him shooting towards the police caused
them to shoot back as they were acting in self-defence and the defendant used the girl as a
shield.
Mens rea is the guilty mind which is the act which does not make a person guilty unless the
mind is legally blameworthy. There are different types of Mens rea such as: intention (direct
and indirect), recklessness, negligence and transferred malice. Intention can be direct or
indirect for example case, “R v Byrne (1960)” the defendant suffered with violent sexual
urges he could not control and he strangled a girl and mutilated the body. The defendant
had a clear intention to kill and the fact that he has perverted sexual desires has no
relevance to the death. Indirect intention or oblique intent is where the defendant might not
want a specific outcome to happen however the chance of the outcome happening is so high
due to their action that there is an oblique intention. An example is “R v Woollin (1998)”. This
is where the defendant lost his temper with his 3-month old son and threw towards a wall.
The baby suffered serious head injuries and died. He was charged with murder but appealed
as he didn’t intend to kill his son. He was later convicted of manslaughter as he knew that his
actions would cause serious injury or death. Recklessness is taking an unjustified risk. It is
Actus Reus is the guilty act such as the action or conduct which is an element of a crime.
There are types of actus reus such as result crime, conduct crime and omission. Result
crime is where the consequence of the crime is required to form actus reus such as murder.
Conduct crime is where doing the crime is adequate enough for actus reus. Omission is the
failure to act which can result in a crime however, it only applies when there is a ‘duty to act’.
There are different types to where there is a duty to act for example, duty arising from: a
special relationship; contractual obligation, public office, voluntary acceptance; and from
starting a dangerous situation. Duty of Act does not apply in Britain as we do not have the
Good Samaritan Law so there is no duty of care owed to strangers. One example of an
omission is the “R v Miller (1983)” case. This was an example of creating a dangerous
situation. This was where the defendant had been drinking in the evening and went back
home and fell asleep. However, he had a lighted cigarette in his hand. He woke up during
the night and realised that the cigarette started a fire and instead of trying to put out the fire
or calling the fire brigade he decided to go sleep in another in room. The defendant created
a dangerous situation and had a responsibility to call the fire brigade upon becoming
conscious of the fire so he was then liable for his omission to do anything.
Causation is where the defendant’s act is sufficient enough to be the cause of the victim’s
death or harm. Prosecutors must prove that someone death was caused by the defendant
act for example a victim dies from a stab wound from the defendant however it gets more
complicated when there is more than one cause of death. This is where causation is used to
determine who is guilty of the crime. Factual causation is where the prosecutor must prove
the test to establish causation. This basically mean that the cause of death must be without
an event occurring which could make the defendant innocent. One example is the “White
and Pagett case”. This is where the men separated from his wife and had a relationship with
a 16-year-old, made her pregnant and then she broke up with him due to him being violent
towards her. The men didn’t take the break up well and shot the girl’s father in her leg,
threatened the mother at gun point, kidnap the girl and his mother, kicked the girl’s mother
out of the car and took the girl hostage at a flat to where police followed them. He then
walked along a balcony using the girl as a shield and fired shots at the police to which they
shot back. As, the police couldn’t see the figure clearly they shot the girl who unfortunately
died. The man was charged with possession of a firearm, kidnapping, attempted murder on
the father and police officers and manslaughter of the girl. However, he appealed against the
manslaughter on the issue of causation. However, him shooting towards the police caused
them to shoot back as they were acting in self-defence and the defendant used the girl as a
shield.
Mens rea is the guilty mind which is the act which does not make a person guilty unless the
mind is legally blameworthy. There are different types of Mens rea such as: intention (direct
and indirect), recklessness, negligence and transferred malice. Intention can be direct or
indirect for example case, “R v Byrne (1960)” the defendant suffered with violent sexual
urges he could not control and he strangled a girl and mutilated the body. The defendant
had a clear intention to kill and the fact that he has perverted sexual desires has no
relevance to the death. Indirect intention or oblique intent is where the defendant might not
want a specific outcome to happen however the chance of the outcome happening is so high
due to their action that there is an oblique intention. An example is “R v Woollin (1998)”. This
is where the defendant lost his temper with his 3-month old son and threw towards a wall.
The baby suffered serious head injuries and died. He was charged with murder but appealed
as he didn’t intend to kill his son. He was later convicted of manslaughter as he knew that his
actions would cause serious injury or death. Recklessness is taking an unjustified risk. It is
