The Analysis of the Actus Reus - Case Study Example

CRIMINAL LAW PROBLEM QUESTION - ACTUS REUS Actus reus, put simply, means 'a guilty act'. This must be present for an offence to have been committed. In the case of murder actus reus must be an act that results in death. In the case of manslaughter, this can be performed in a commission or an omission resulting in death. The most common definition of the actus reus in murder is provided by Edward Coke, who states - "When a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's Peace, . . . so as the party wounded, or hurt, et cetera, die of the wound or hurt, et cetera, within a year and a day after the same." In order for Eve to have the actus reus required for murder or manslaughter in the events in question, she must have voluntarily and unlawfully committed an act or omission that caused, with no intervening act or event, the death of Brian, Fred and/or Ginger. Firstly, the act or omission of the accused must have been voluntary (Hill v Baxter). This means that the accused must be 'of sound memory'. For example, if the accused drives their car off the road and hits a pedestrian, killing them, during an epileptic fit, this would make the act involuntary, as the accused was not 'of sound memory'. An involuntary act is also one that is being forced upon the accused. For instance, if a loaded gun is being held to the head of the accused and the person wielding the gun threatens to shoot the accused if he or she does not perform the act, this act is involuntary. The voluntary act committed by the accused must also be unlawful. In the case of murder or manslaughter, justifiable homicide is one committed in self-defence or in the defence of another. Other justifiable homicides exist when the killing was committed in war or in the prevention of the commission of a crime (eg: a police officer shooting a bank robber). Therefore, the voluntary act must have been committed under none of the aforementioned justifiable situations. It needs to be done unlawfully. Most importantly, an act must have been committed. An act is a bodily movement, such as the exertion of energy or force that produces an effect. An act includes an omission in the case of manslaughter. However, an omission can only be considered as part of the actus reus if the accused owed a duty of care to the victim and breached that duty by failing to act. A duty of care may arise in the following cases - when the accused is the carer of a child or dependant; when the accused is the cause of the danger; when the accused has already assumed a responsibility of a duty of care; and, when the accused fails to get medical help. The voluntary, unlawful act must have caused the death of the victim. Causation is a necessary condition for any form of homicide. The element of causation can be deduced using the 'but for test' - 'But for' not having acted, the death would not have occurred (Smith v Hogan). However, the action or omission must not only have contributed to the death but must be a sufficiently substantial and operating cause and have not been interrupted by an intervening act by a third party or event (novus actus interveniens). A novus actus interveniens breaks the chain of causation. When the chain of causation is broken, the accused cannot be held accountable for the death of the victim. However, this novus actus interveniens must not be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial act or omission of the accused. Any act or event which is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial act or omission of the accused does not break the chain of causation. When the above mentioned elements of a crime are satisfied, this constitutes the actus reus for murder (except in the case of omission, when it can only be manslaughter). In the following cases, the victims Brian, Fred and Ginger, are all fatally injured in the course of events that implicate Eve for murder or manslaughter. Brian In order for Eve to have the actus reus required for murder, she must have voluntarily and unlawfully committed an act that caused the death of Brian. In the case of manslaughter, she must have committed an act or an omission that resulted in Brian's death. Eve left Brian injured on the ground without any coercion from a third party and she did so while in sound mind - meaning she was not suffering a physical or mental illness at the time she chose to leave Brian. She also had no lawful reason for leaving him. She was not in any danger herself. These facts satisfy the requirements of actus reus - voluntarily and unlawfully. In this case, Eve did not act in a way that caused Brian injury. Brian fell over and injured himself. This means that Eve did not commit murder. However, her failing to get medical attention for him is an omission, and in the case of manslaughter, a failure to act will also constitute actus reus. Eve clearly failed to act and left Brian to bleed to death; however, for Eve to have committed the actus reus required for manslaughter, she must have owed a duty of care to Brian and have breached that duty by her omission (R v Adomako). Eve was not Brian's parent or carer, she did not cause the danger to Brian, nor was she bound by her profession to act (eg: a doctor). These common instances where a duty of care is owed do not apply to Eve. However, in R v Khan, the defendant, who supplied the victim with heroin, was convicted of manslaughter by omission for having failed to call for medical attention. While the facts in this case differ considerably, the same duty to summon medical attention when the accused is alone with another who is injured can be inferred. This failure to act must have been the cause of Brian's death. The 'but for' test can be applied here. 'But for' Eve's actions, Brian would not have died. Or, more accurately, if Eve had called for medical help, Brain would still be alive. There was no intervening event to break the chain of causation. Eve's negligence is a sufficiently substantial and operating cause of Brian's death. Eve voluntarily and unlawfully caused the death of Brian by omission, satisfying the requirements for the actus reus required for manslaughter. She has not, however, satisfied all the elements required for the actus reus of murder, as murder requires a positive action, omission is not sufficient. Fred In order for Eve to have satisfied the elements required for the actus reus of murder, she must have voluntarily and unlawfully committed an act that caused the death of Fred. In the case of manslaughter, this can be in the form of an omission. As was the case with Brian, Eve acted without any coercion from a third party and she did so while in sound mind. Further, she was not in any danger. She was not in the vicinity of Fred and he posed no immediate threat to her. These facts satisfy the requirements of actus reus - voluntarily and unlawfully. Unlike the case with Brian, with regards to Fred, Eve committed a positive act - pouring petrol through Fred's letter box and igniting it. It is reasonably foreseeable that a house fire can injure or kill any inhabitants of the house (R v Goodfellow). The question to be asked is whether the act consciously performed by the defendant is so connected with the event that it must be regarded as having a substantially causal effect without being in the eyes of the law sufficiently interrupted by some other act or event. Novus actus interveniens is an act or event that breaks the chain of causation. Examples of possible novus actus interveniens are an act of god, actions of a third party, and medical incompetence. For a third party to be able to break the chain of causation, it must not be reasonably foreseeable. For instance, if Fred, suffering the effects of severe smoke inhalation, was left in his house for a substantial period of time as the ambulance, on its way to pick him up, was delayed due to traffic, this would not constitute a novus actus interveniens. It is reasonably foreseeable that a rescue may be delayed or may not arrive at all. This does not break the chain of causation, as Fred would still be killed as a direct result of Eve's actions. There are two events that occur between Eve's positive action causing injury to Fred, and Fred's death, that may be novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation - a road accident and an allergic reaction to antibiotics given to Fred at the hospital. The first event that may result in breaking the chain of causation is the road accident. However, the car hitting Fred's ambulance merely delays his travel to the hospital; it does not cause any further injury. When an injured party is being transported on roads where there are other users, it is reasonably foreseeable that there may be delays in getting to the hospital. Had the road accident caused injury of itself to Fred, which resulted in his death, this would constitute a novus actus interveniens. Here that is not the case. Therefore, the road accident did not break the chain of causation. The second event was the acts of a third party. While in hospital to receive treatment for the injuries caused by Eve, Fred was given antibiotics which he had an allergic reaction to. However, was the treatment medical incompetence Should the doctor have made himself aware of his patient's allergies It appears to be medical incompetence that caused the death of Fred, as it was his allergic reaction to antibiotics that killed him, not his initial injury. Although Fred would not have been in the hospital 'but for' Eve's actions, negligent medical treatment constitutes a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation. Eve's actions were not a sufficiently substantial and operating cause of Fred's death. As the element of causation is not satisfied, Eve has not satisfied the requirements for actus reus for murder or manslaughter with regard to Fred. Fred died as a direct result of an allergic reaction to antibiotics. This is a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation. Eve cannot be culpable. Ginger In order for Eve to have the actus reus required for the murder of Ginger, she must have voluntarily and unlawfully committed an act that caused Ginger's death. In the case of manslaughter, this can be in the form of an omission. As was the case with Brian and Fred, Eve acted without any coercion from a third party and she did so while in sound mind. Further, her actions were not justifiable, as in cases of self-defence. These facts satisfy the requirements of actus reus - voluntarily and unlawfully. Eve committed one act that resulted in the injury of both Fred and Ginger - pouring petrol through Fred's letter box and igniting it. Although Eve's act was directed at Fred, not Ginger, Ginger was also in the house at the time the act was committed, and she too, suffered injury. It is reasonably foreseeable that a house fire can injure or kill any inhabitants of the house. Although Eve did not know anyone other than Fred was in the house, it is reasonably foreseeable that Fred may have guests at the time Eve lighted the fire. Therefore, any injury persons other than Fred suffered in the course of the events, Eve is also liable for. Eve's act, therefore, directly caused injury to Ginger. However, Ginger did not die in the house; she was transported to hospital and offered life-saving treatment which she refused. In cases such as this, it is important to remember that you take your victim as you find them (the eggshell skull rule). Therefore, when a victim wishes to refuse lifesaving medical treatment for any reason (most commonly due to religious beliefs), this is not a novus actus interveniens. Ginger still died as a result of the initial injury caused by Eve. The causal link was not broken. In consideration of the above facts, Eve has satisfied the requirements for the actus reus of manslaughter with regards to Ginger. As Ginger's death resulted due to a positive action made by Eve, she has also satisfied the requirements for the actus reus of murder. Eve voluntarily and unlawfully caused the death of Ginger. Read More