1. A2 Law – Introduction to CRIME

2. Need to know:
o The 3 types of actus
reus
oThe rules of causation
oThe categories of
A2 Law – Basic
omissions
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

3. Introductory questions?
1. What is the burden of proof?
The prosecution have the burden to prove
the defendant is guilty.
2. What is the standard of proof?
„beyond all reasonable doubt.‟
3. What are the 3 types of crime?
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime – Summary, either-way & indictable.
part 1 ACTUS REUS

4. 4. Which court deals with all criminal
cases?
Magistrates‟ Court
5. Where are serious cases heard?
Crown Court
6. Who will decide the outcome in a
serious case?
Jury
7. Who will sentence a defendant who is
found guilty?
Judge
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

5. 8. What are the aims of sentencing?
Punishment, reduction of crime,
rehabilitation, protection of the public,
reparation.
9. What are the four types of sentence?
Custodial, community, fine, discharge.
10. Where can the defendant appeal?
From the Magistrates‟ Court, appeals go
A2 Law – Basic to Crown Court or the High Court.
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS
From Crown Court, appeals go to the
Court of Appeal.

6. What is a crime?
„An act committed or
omitted in violation of a
law forbidding or
commanding it and for
which punishment is
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
imposed upon
part 1 ACTUS REUS conviction.‟

7. Task
o Rank the 4 cases in
order of severity of
criminality (who is the
worst criminal?)
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

8. Actus Reus & Mens Rea
BATTERY:
o „The application of unlawful force to the victim
with intention or recklessness‟
THEFT:
o „Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to
another with the intention to permanently
deprive‟.
MURDER:
o „Unlawful killing with malice aforethought‟.
A2 Law – Basic LICENSING:
Elements of Crime – o „A person commits an offence if he sells alcohol
part 1 ACTUS REUS
to a person under 18.‟

9. o Silk
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

10. Voluntary Conduct
o
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

11. Types of Actus Reus
1. Result Crimes
2. Conduct Crimes
3. State of Affairs
Crimes
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

12. R v Larsonneur
o
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

13. State of Affairs Crimes
o Can you spot the state of affairs?
BATTERY:
o „The application of unlawful force to the victim
with intention or recklessness‟
THEFT:
o „Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to
another with the intention to permanently
deprive‟.
MURDER:
A2 Law – Basic o „Unlawful killing with malice aforethought‟.
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

14. Terminology Check
ACTUS REUS
Guilty Act
MENS REA
Guilty Mind
VOLUNTARY
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime – The act or omission must be
part 1 ACTUS REUS
voluntary on the part of the
defendant.

15. Terminology Check
RESULT CRIMES
Where the actus reus requires the
defendant to cause a particular result in
order to be liable.
CONDUCT CRIMES
The actus reus requires the defendant to
A2 Law – Basic simply do a particular act, with no
Elements of Crime – particular result needing to be achieved.
part 1 ACTUS REUS

16. Terminology Check
STATE OF AFFAIRS CRIMES
The actus reus consists of both conduct
+ circumstances.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

17. Introduction to
causation
Causation is an important element of
many crimes.
Before learning the rules of causation, in
groups or pairs, discuss whether or not
the defendants caused the victim‟s
injuries in the situations.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

18. Introduction to
causation
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

19. Causation
o For „result‟ crimes, the prosecution must prove
that the defendant‟s voluntary act or omission
„caused‟ the victim‟s death or injury.
Specifically, the prosecution must establish and
prove the Rules of Causation.
Factual Legal
Causation Causation
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

20. Factual Causation
o The D’s conduct must be a factual
cause of the V’s death or injury.
o In order to establish factual causation,
the prosecution must prove:
The ‘but for’ test:
o ‘But for’ the conduct of the
defendant, the victim would not
A2 Law – Basic have suffered the injury or death as
Elements of Crime – and when they did.
part 1 ACTUS REUS

21. R v White (1910)
Do you think this was the right
decision?
o It was fair that D was found not
guilty of murder because his
actions did not actually kill her. It
is fair that he was found guilty of
attempted murder because he is a
danger to society. It would not be
A2 Law – Basic fair on the victim if he was
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS completely acquitted.

22. R v White (1910)
Is the ‘but-for’ test fair?
o It must be proved that the D
caused the victim‟s injury or death.
o The „but-for‟ test is fair because
there has to be a factual
connection between D‟s act and
the consequence to the victim to
A2 Law – Basic
allocate blame.
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS
o If the consequence would have
happened anyway, there is no
liability. (White 1910)

23. Factual Causation
o Suppose D invites V to his house for a
party. On the way V is run over and
killed. Clearly if D had not invited V he
would not have died in those
circumstances.
Should D be liable?
o The mere establishment of a factual
connection between D‟s act and V‟s
death is insufficient. Here there is no MR
A2 Law – Basic or AR, but the missing element is legal
Elements of Crime – causation.
part 1 ACTUS REUS

24. Legal Causation
o Once factual causation has been
established, the prosecution must
then prove that the defendant’s
act was a cause of the victim‟s
death or injury in law.
o This is linked with moral
responsibility. The question is
whether the result can fairly
A2 Law – Basic be said to be the fault of the
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS defendant.

25. Legal Causation
There are three issues in legal
causation that need to be
considered:
1. Substantial and operative cause
2. Intervening acts (Novus Actus
Interveniens) that are reasonably
foreseeable
3. Susceptibility of the victim („thin skull
test‟)
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

26. Legal Causation
1. The defendant’s act/ omission was
a substantial and operative cause
of the victim’s death or injury, but
it need not be the only or main
cause:
o There must be a direct link from the
defendant’s conduct to the
consequence. This is known as the
chain of causation. In some situations if
A2 Law – Basic
something else happens after the
Elements of Crime – defendant‟s act or omission and, if
part 1 ACTUS REUS sufficiently separate from the
defendants conduct, it may break the
chain of causation.

27. Legal Causation
Break in the chain of
causation
o For a defendant to be liable there must
be no break in the chain of causation.
o In order to break the chain of causation
so that the df is not responsible for the
consequence, the intervening act must
be sufficiently independent of the df‟s
conduct and sufficiently serious.
However, the chain of causation can
be broken by:
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime – o Palpably wrong medical treatment
part 1 ACTUS REUS
o Unreasonable action of a third party
o Unreasonable action of the victim

28. Medical treatment
o Poor medical treatment is unlikely to
break the chain of causation.
o D stabs V  V goes to hospital and
receives the poor medical treatment that
makes his injuries worse  V dies  D
still liable for V‟s death.
o Poor medical treatment will only break
the chain of causation if it is so
independent of the D’s acts and in
A2 Law – Basic itself is so palpably wrong that it is
Elements of Crime – potent in causing the V’s death that
part 1 ACTUS REUS
the D’s acts can be regarded as
insignificant.

29. Medical Treatment
What was the key difference in
Jordan that broke the chain of
causation?
o In Jordan, the drug and not the stab
wound was the substantial and
operative cause of death. (The
wounds had almost
healed)Therefore the doctor who
administered the injection broke the
chain of causation.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

30. Medical Treatment
Why are the courts reluctant to break
the chain of causation in medical
cases?
o The medical negligence is not independent of the
D‟s acts.
o In Smith and Cheshire the doctors were carrying
out treatment for the injuries in an attempt to save
V‟s life. The V‟s would not have needed treatment if
they had not been seriously injured by D.
o D‟s acts are a significant factor therefore medical
negligence should not excuse liability for their
actions. It may seem unfair that it is so difficult to
A2 Law – Basic break the chain even where the medical treatment
Elements of Crime – has contributed to the death of the V, however the
part 1 ACTUS REUS law states that the D‟s actions do not need to be the
only or the main cause of V‟s injury or death.

31. Medical Treatment
o Is it fair and morally right that where a defendant
has injured the victim who then receives medical
treatment that is unsatisfactory, should the
defendant be able to claim that they are no longer
liable and that the treatment broke the chain of
causation?
In groups create arguments for YES and NO
o Medical treatment is unlikely to break the
chain of causation unless it is so
independent of the D‟s acts and in itself is
so palpably wrong in causing the V‟s death
that the D‟s acts are insignificant. E.g. in
A2 Law – Basic
Jordan the fact that V was given a large
Elements of Crime – amount of a drug which the doctors knew
part 1 ACTUS REUS he was allergic to, it was sufficiently
independent act to break the chain of
causation.

32. Actions of a third party
o The courts tend to take the view
that it is only in extreme
circumstances that the defendant
can avoid liability for causing
someone‟s death by trying to
blame somebody else.
o Pagett (1983) illustrates this.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

33. Actions of the victim
o If the defendant causes the victim
to react in a foreseeable way, then
the injury to the victim will be
considered to have been caused
by the defendant.
o However if the victims reaction is
unreasonable, then this may break
the chain of causation.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

34. R v Roberts (1972)
Stephenson LJ:
“if the victim does something „so
daft or so unexpected that no
reasonable person could be
expected to foresee it, then it
would break the chain of
causation.
o In order fot the df to be liable, The
A2 Law – Basic victims act has to be foreseeable
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS and in proportion to the threat.

35. Novus Actus
Interveniens
o Explain whether you think these cases
were fair results?
o Explain whether you think Pagett
expected the police to return fire?
o Explain whether you think Roberts
A2 Law – Basic expected the girl to jump out of the car?
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

36. Novus Actus Interveniens (A new
intervening act)
o The V‟s act has to be foreseeable and also
has to be in proportion to the threat.
o For example in Roberts when D touched
V‟s skirt she feared she was about to be
raped, so she jumped from the moving
car. Her response in the
circumstances was reasonably
foreseeable and therefore did not
break the chain of causation.
o Where the threats to V are serious, then it
A2 Law – Basic is more likely for it to be reasonable to
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS jump out of a moving car, window, river
etc.
o Compare with Williams and Davis

37. Williams & Davis
(1992)
The defendants had given a lift to a hitchhiker
on his way to Glastonbury. The defendants
tried to rob the hitchhiker so he jumped out of
the car and died.
The defendants were found guilty of robbery
and manslaughter but the Court of Appeal
quashed the convictions.
The jury should have been asked to consider if
the victim jumping out of the car was „within
the range of responses‟ which might be
expected.
A2 Law – Basic
o Where the threat is minor and the V takes
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS drastic action, it is more likely that the courts
will hold that it broke the chain of causation.

38. Williams & Davis
(1992)
o Why do you think that the courts made
a different decision in Williams and
Davis to Roberts?
o What were the threats in each of the
cases?
o Would it have made a difference if the
victim in Williams and Davis was a
woman?
o Do you think the decision to find the
A2 Law – Basic Df‟s not guilty in Williams was a fair
Elements of Crime – decision?
part 1 ACTUS REUS

39. Susceptibility of the
victim
One thing that will never break the chain of
causation is:
o Susceptibility of the victim because you
must take your victim as you find them
o This means that that if the victim has
something unusual about their physical or
mental state such as a medical
condition/religious beliefs unknown to D,
A2 Law – Basic which makes the injury more serious, the
Elements of Crime – defendant is still liable for the more
part 1 ACTUS REUS
serious injury or death.

40. Susceptibility of the
victim
Is the ‘thin skull’ rule too harsh?
o This rule can be seen as unjust as even
where V has something unusual about their
physical or mental state such as a medical
condition/religious beliefs unknown to
D, which makes the injury more
serious, the defendant is still liable for
the more serious injury or death.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

41. Susceptibility of the
victim
Is the ‘thin skull’ rule too harsh?
o In Blaue (1975) the victim refused a blood
transfusion because of her religious beliefs. Her life
could have been saved had she had a transfusion.
o It can be argued therefore that the decision in Blaue
was too harsh and that he should not be liable for
her death. He could have been charged with s.18
OAPA 1861 wounding with intent, as the maximum
penalty for this is life imprisonment, so a suitable
punishment could have been imposed on D.
o On the other hand, Blaue had stabbed the victim
A2 Law – Basic several times, clearly intending serious harm or even
Elements of Crime – death and it is clear that the stab wound was the
part 1 ACTUS REUS cause of the victims death, so on this basis he should
be liable for her death.

42. Susceptibility of the
victim
Is the ‘thin skull’ rule too harsh?
Note discussion of additional cases:
o Holland
o Dear
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

43. Terminology Check
Factual causation
The „but for‟ test – „but for‟ the conduct
of the defendant, the victim would not
have suffered the injury or death as and
when they did.
Legal causation
The defendant‟s act was a cause of the
A2 Law – Basic victim‟s death or injury in law.
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

44. Breaks in the chain of causation
The chain of causation can be broken
by:
o Palpably wrong medical treatment
o Unreasonable action of a third party
o Unreasonable action of the victim
Palpably wrong medical treatment
Medical treatment will not normally
break the chain of causation unless it is
A2 Law – Basic „palpably (obviously) wrong‟.
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

45. Intervening act
An unreasonable action of the victim or
an unreasonable action of a third party
will break the chain of causation.
Susceptibility of the victim
One thing that will never break the chain
of causation is susceptibility of the victim
because you must take your victim as
you find them.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

46. R v Cheshire (1991)
1. Did Cheshire succeed in his appeal?
No
2. Outline the main facts of the case.
Cheshire shot Trevor Jeffrey with a handgun
after an argument. Bullets entered Mr Jeffrey‟s
thigh bone and stomach. He was rushed to
hospital and underwent surgery. He had to have
a tracheotomy tube inserted into his windpipe to
help him to breathe he died on February 14.
A2 Law – Basic 3. Were the doctors to blame?
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS No

47. R v Cheshire (1991)
4. Were the gunshot wounds the
substantial and operative cause of
death?
Yes
5. Why would the court prefer to blame
Cheshire instead of the doctors?
The victim would not have been in hospital in
the first place. The defendant is a dangerous
criminal whereas the doctors were just trying to
A2 Law – Basic do their job.
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

48. R v Cheshire (1991)
6. Why is Cheshire „significantly different‟
than Jordan?
In Jordan, the drug and not the stab
wound was the substantial and
operative cause of death. Therefore the
doctor who administered the injection
broke the chain of causation.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

49. Extra Causation Cases
o Kennedy No.2
oWilliams & Davis
oMalcherek & Steel
oMarchant & Muntz
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime – oHolland
part 1 ACTUS REUS
oDear

50. Breaks in chain of
causation- extra
cases
o Victims own act
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

51. Kennedy (2007)HL
Simon Kennedy was living in a hostel.
He went to visit Marco Bosque and
Andrew Cody who shared a room in the
same hostel. The group were drinking
and Bosque asked Kennedy for “a bit to
help him sleep”. Kennedy prepared a
syringe of heroin and gave it to Bosque
who injected the drug and returned the
empty syringe to Kennedy. Bosque later
died from choking on his own vomit.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime – The victim had broken the chain of
part 1 ACTUS REUS causation when he freely and voluntarily
injected the heroin.

52. Williams & Davis
(1992)
The defendants had given a lift to a hitchhiker
on his way to Glastonbury. The defendants
tried to rob the hitchhiker so he jumped out of
the car and died.
The defendants were found guilty of robbery
and manslaughter but the Court of Appeal
quashed the convictions.
The jury should have been asked to consider if
the victim jumping out of the car was „within
the range of responses‟ which might be
expected.
A2 Law – Basic
o Where the threat is minor and the V takes
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS drastic action, it is more likely that the courts
will hold that it broke the chain of causation.

53. Marchant & Muntz
(2004)
Muntz owed a tractor fitted with
metre long tynes (spikes). Marchant
drove the tractor on the road. The
victim was killed when he crashed
his speeding motorcycle into the
tractor. It was argued that the tynes
should have been covered with a
guard.
The convictions were quashed by the Court
of Appeal. M & M had not caused the
A2 Law – Basic victim‟s death. Even if the tynes had been
Elements of Crime – covered, the victim‟s injuries would have
part 1 ACTUS REUS been extremely serious.

54. Breaks in chain of
causation- extra
cases
o Medical
A2 Law – Basic
intervention
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

55. Malcherek & Steel
Malcherek stabbed his wife nine times.
Steel attacked a woman with a large
stone. Both women were put on life
support machines which the doctors
eventually switched off. The defendants
were charged with murder but appealed.
They argued that the doctors had
broken the chain of causation. The Court
of Appeal rejected the argument and
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime – said that to say the doctors were to
part 1 ACTUS REUS blame was „bizarre‟.

56. Thin skull test - extra
cases
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

57. Holland (1841)
The defendant cut the victim
on the finger. The wound got
infected but the victim would
not have medical treatment
(the finger needed
amputating). The victim
developed lockjaw and died.
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
The defendant had caused the
part 1 ACTUS REUS victim‟s death.

58. Holland (1841)
Is the thin skull test too harsh?
o It can be argued that it is unjust for D to be
liable when the V refuses medical treatment. The
decision in Holland on the facts seems very
harsh on the D when the original injury was a
cut to the finger and D was liable for V‟s death.
o However, this decision was probably justified, as
in 1841 medical treatment was very
primitive, especially when operations had to be
carried out without anaesthetic.
A2 Law – Basic o However it could be argued that D should not be
Elements of Crime – liable on the same scenario today.
part 1 ACTUS REUS

59. Dear (1996)
The defendant slashed the
victim severing an artery.
The victim did not try to
stop the bleeding and bled
to death.
The defendant had caused
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime – the victim‟s death.
part 1 ACTUS REUS

60. Dear (1996)
Is the thin skull test too harsh?
o The victim in this case did not have the wounds
attended to and possibly opened the wounds
further making the bleeding worse. V died from
a loss of blood which could have been prevented
should V have sought medical treatment. It
could therefore be argued that V had effectively
decided to commit suicide by allowing the
wounds to continue to bleed and therefore
finding D guilty was a harsh result.
o Despite this, the court held that, provided the
A2 Law – Basic wounds were a substantial and operating
Elements of Crime – cause, the jury were entitled to convict D.
part 1 ACTUS REUS

61. OMISSIONS
o
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS

62. o
A2 Law – Basic
Elements of Crime –
part 1 ACTUS REUS