Actus Reus Table of Contents Actus reus and Causation Causation - the proximity test Novus actus interveniens Causation by omission 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 5 Page 7
Actus Reus and Causation Actus reus refers to the conduct element of a crime. Conduct is very widely interpreted, and many offences criminalise omissions too (eg. failing to file a tax return). What matters is whether D has any control over his conduct (ie. having the physical possibility of conducting himself differently). However, this may be a question of statutory interpretation. . R v Robinson-Pierre [2013]: - Pierre owned a vicious bull terrier and police came to his house one day with a search warrant - Police broke down door and were attacked by dog, Robinson was thus charged on several accounts under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 - One of these charges was 'being the owner of a dog which caused injury whilst dangerously out of control in a public place' - This charge didn't account for the attack within the house, but when the dog chased the policemen into the street - Pierre argued he had no control over the dog being in a public place - Crown Court judge decided this didn't matter and convicted him - Court of Appeal overruled this as they decided to interpret the offence as being applicable only if the defendant had some control over the animal Assuming proof of conduct over which D had some control, three questions must be asked to determine whether this conduct caused a later result. · Causation: - Factual causation is established as to the 'but for' test - Would the same result have occurred 'but for' D's conduct? If not, then - Is there a substantial link between D's conduct and the way in which the result occurred (the proximity test), if yes, then - Did anyone (other than D, and not acting with D) intervene to bring about the result directly, anticipating the result, and acting independently and in a free and informed matter (novus actus interveniens)? If no, then causation is established · But for test: - The prosecution must show beyond reasonable doubt that the same result would not have happened if not for D's conduct - It's not enough to show that D's conduct made it substantially more likely to occur - In R v Broughton [2020], Broughton supplied drugs to his girlfriend, he delayed in calling an ambulance and she died (causation not established as doctors couldn't definitely say she would've survived even without delay) - Arguments can arise about what it means to say that the 'same result' would not otherwise have occurred (does it make a difference if D's conduct causes V to die just 10 minutes before he would've died anyway?) 2
- In R v Bawa-Garba [2016], D was a doctor and misdiagnosed a child who later died Medical evidence suggested that if D diagnosed illness sooner, child would've survived - or died somewhat later - All