Darius Ng & Nicole Chia ACTUS REUS For answering PQs: (1) Identify the AR of the crime - behaviour, circumstance, consequence, or a combination of any (2) Establish that, on the facts, AR exists (3) Did D's act cause the AR? (Establish causation between D's act and AR): Positive Acts Factual Causation · To satisfy factual causation: "But for" test - but D's actions, AR of the offence would not have occurred Legal Causation · To satisfy legal causation: (i) D's act must be substantial; (ii) no novus actus interveniens Element (i): D's act must be substantial (not de minimis) and must be salient cause of AR R v Hennigan (1971): D caused death by dangerous driving. " Principle: D's act must be more than a de minimis cause. R v Smith (1959): D stabbed V who was dropped twice and given the wrong treatment. V died. " Principle: D's act can remain a substantial cause even if medical treatment could have saved V but failed to do so because of negligence. R v Cheshire (1979): D shot V. During surgery, V had a tube inserted into his throat but the tube narrowed and V suffocated two months later. V had not been properly examined by the staff despite this being a known problem. " Principle: D's act does not have to be the immediate cause of V's death. As long as D's act substantially contributed to the outcome, legal causation between D's act and AR can be established. R v Dear (1996): Reopening wounds case. " Principle: Even if V's death is caused by V reopening his wounds, D's act does not stop being a substantial cause. R v Carey (2ffff6) : Fight and unexpected ventricular fibrillation case. " Principle: D's act may be unlawful and dangerous but legal causation will not be satisfied unless D's act is the salient cause of V's death. R v Hughes (2ff13): D was driving faultlessly without license and insurance. V was driving dangerously because of fatigue and heroin injection. Collision occurred between D and V - V suffered fatal injuries. " D not guilty - there must be 'at least some act or omission which involves some element of fault and which contributes in some more than minimal way to the result' " Principle: D's act must be more than a de minimis cause. R v Taylor (2ff16): D drove a vehicle without the owner's consent and was under the influence of alcohol - hit and killed a scooter rider. " Upheld Hughes - court said D's driving must have been at fault for D to be convicted of aggravated vehicle taking. " Principle: D's act must be more than a de minimis cause. Element (ii): There must not be an intervening event which breaks the chain of causation Natural Events " Natural events = NOT novus actus interveniens if foreseeable (chain of causation not broken) Alphacell v Woodward (1972): Leaves clogging pumps case. 1
Darius Ng & Nicole Chia · Principle: