Actus Reus And Mens Rea

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

A doctor who terminates life support is not liable for the death of the patient, because this is merely an omission to act.

1) Statutory duty

2) Contractual duty

3) Duties in public office

4) Voluntary assumption of responsibility

5) Special relationship

+1) Creating a dangerous situation

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 - requires parents or guardians of children to protect the child.

Dytham

Police officer was convicted for failing to intervene in an attack.

Instan

D moved into V's house, living there and eating V's food, but did not take care of V. V died and D was held liable on the basis of an implicit voluntary assumption of care.

D tried to help V, who had overdosed on drugs, before leaving him outside. By helping V, D had assumed responsibility for V's safety and was therefore liable.

Lowe

Miller

D, a squatter in V's house, went to sleep with a lit cigarette and woke up to find the house on fire. D did nothing besides moving to a different room. D was held liable for criminal damage for failing to take any steps to prevent the fire.

Evans

D, V's half-sister, supplied her with heroine which she self-administered. V overdosed but D did not seek help. D was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

D drove over V's foot accidentally. After being told to get off, V did not move for a while. Held that the later mens rea to not move corresponded with the continuous actus reus of being on the foot.

The But For test

R v White:

D gave V poison, but V happened to die of a heart attack instead of the poison. D not liable for murder.

D's action must be the "substantial and operating cause"

Hughes

D was driving while uninsured when he was in an accident caused by V, who was intoxicated. V died and D was charged with having caused V's death by driving illegally. D acquitted because his driving, while illegal, was not the substantial cause of V's death.

R v Warburton and Hubbersty

D left V unconscious on the beach. V drowned when the tide came in. D held to have caused the death.

Was the intervention by the third party free, voluntary and informed?

Did the intervention stop D's conduct from being substantial and operative?

R v Latif: D, informer, had been used in an entrapment scheme by drug enforcement agency that had him fraudulently move drugs; agency's actions held to be intervening act breaking chain of causation.

R v Michael

D gave poison to a third party to administer to V. Third party's actions held to have not broken the chain of causation.

R v Pagett

D kidnapped V and held her hostage. Shootout with police ensued in which V was killed by police bullet. D held liable for manslaughter against V. Police's actions were held to have not broken chain of causation because it was in the execution of legal duty.

Smith

Cheshire

Held:

If V dies from normal treatment resulting from D's act then D still liable. However, treatment in this case was not normal, so D was not liable. (Doctor broke chain of causation.)

D stabbed V. On way to hospital V was dropped twice and doctors refused V a blood transfusion, leading to V's death.

Held: D's action remained substantial and operative cause. Treatment will only break CoC where "second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history [such that] the death does not flow from the wound."

V shot by D. Was treated normally but windpipe became blocked by scarring tissue resulting from treatment and V died.

Held: D was liable for murder of V. Treatment will only break CoC in "extraordinary and unusual" cases. D's acts need not be the only or main cause of death so long as they contributed significantly to the result. CoC only broken if negligent treatment was so potent in causing the death as to make D's actions insignificant.

If injury operating and substantial cause, D liable. If V killed by medical treatment gone wrong, D still liable unless negligent treatment was independent and "potent" (as in Cheshire) as to make D's actions insignificant.

2) Intervention must be free, voluntary, and informed (Kennedy)

3) Take your victim as you find them (Blaue)

D made unwanted sexual advances on V while driving V home. V jumped out of car and suffered actual bodily harm. D charged with assault occasioning ABH (s47).

Held: V jumping out of car was foreseeable and did not break chain of causation.

D, drug dealer, supplied V with a syringe of heroine. V self-injected and died as a result. D charged with manslaughter for causing V's death.

Held: V broke CoC. Self-injection was free, voluntary and informed. (Would have been different if D directly administered however.)

D stabbed V. V could have been saved with blood transfusion but refused on religious grounds and died.

Held: V's refusal did not break chain of causation. D must take their victim as they find them. D guilty of manslaughter.

R v Nedrick: D lit house on fire. V died as a result. Held not liable for murder because death was not a virtually certain consequence.

R v Woollin: D threw child against a hard surface. Child died. Held not liable for murder because death was not a virtually certain consequence.

Two-part test:

1) The element in question (result, fact, etc.) was a virtually certain consequence of D's action, AND

2) D realized that it was a virtually certain consequence.

Cunningham

2-part test:

1) D foresaw a risk that their conduct would cause a result. (*No minimum degree of risk)

2) The risk was unreasonable/unjustified for D to run