Actus Reus

Actus Reus

Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime. There are 3 types of conduct that make up Actus Reus.

• Positive voluntary acts
• A failure to act (Omissions)
• A state of affairs

Positive Voluntary Act
Positive voluntary act is demonstrated in the case of R v Mcpherson (1973) when a woman took two bottles of whiskey from a shelf in a self service shop, and put them into her own shopping bag to steal them. Dismissing her appeal against her conviction for theft, the court of appeal said this was enough to be an appropriation of the bottles; there had been an overt act inconsistent with the rights of the owner and that was enough.

The act must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. Therefore it must be freely willed. If a defendant acts involuntary the actus reus of the offence may not be made out and therefore D may be not guilty.

This is illustrated in the case of Hill v Baxter (1958). The court created a hypothetical situation which never actually happened; it helps us understand an involuntary act better. The court gave the case of a driver who lost control of his car, due to being attacked by a swarm of bees or having a heart attack whilst driving which resulted in someone being run over. This would not be a positive voluntary act as he couldn’t control the car as his circumstances took away his free will.

Omissions
A rule by Stephen J is the general rule in relation to omissions. His rule is ‘A sees B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned. A has committed no offence.’

While there is a strong moral duty to act in the situation by Stephen J, there is no legal duty to act. However, there are some situations where D will find he is under a legal duty to act. This is normally because of a special relationship between D and V, or a special relationship arising out of the circumstance, or the law imposes a duty to act. The exceptions to the general rule are where d is under these circumstances.

A duty to act which has been taken voluntarily
Defendant’s sister came to live with him and his wife but she had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia nervosa. Ted and Gwendolyn took her in and agreed to look after her. However, her condition deteriorated and she was found dead in her bed in appalling conditions. Stone and Dobinson were found liable for her death as they had assumed a responsibility to her by taking her in. They failed to look after her and ensure she got the medical help she needed.

A contractual duty to act

The defendant was employed by a railway company to man the gate at a level crossing. The defendant lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass and then went off to lunch failing to put it back down. A train later collided with a horse and cart killing the train driver. The defendant was liable for the death of the train driver as it was his contractual duty to close the gate.

A duty to act because of a relationship

D and his common law wife failed to feed the man's 7 year-old child and she died from starvation. The woman hated the child and was clearly the moving force. The woman was held to be liable because, while the child was not hers, she was living with the man and had accepted his money for food. The courts regarded the parent's duty towards a young child as so self-evident as not to require analysis or authority.

A duty to act through one’s official position
The defendant was a police officer. He stood by whilst a bouncer kicked a man to death. He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public officer. He argued that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specifically requires misconduct.

A duty to act which arises because D has set in motion a chain of events which creates a dangerous situation

The defendant had been out drinking for the evening. He went back to the house he had been staying in and fell asleep on a mattress with a lighted cigarette in his hand. He awoke and saw that the cigarette had started a small fire. Upon seeing the fire, he then got up and went to another room and went back to sleep. At his trial, the prosecution did not rely on the acts of the defendant in falling asleep with a lighted cigarette as being reckless, but relied solely on the grounds that upon becoming aware of the fire he failed to take steps to put the fire out or call the fire brigade.

A statutory duty to act because of an act of parliament

The defendant was the owner of a dangerous dog which has escaped its chain, entering a garden biting the face of a small child. Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 provides that if the owner of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there it injures any person, he is guilty of an offence.

State of affairs cases

There are some rare situations where D may be convicted even though he did not act truly voluntarily. There cases are known as state of affairs cases. The law sometimes takes a very strict view of what ‘voluntary’ means, for example in R v Larsonneur.

In the case of R v Larsonneur D had been ordered to leave the UK. She went to Ireland and got deported back to the UK. Going back to the UK was forced upon will. She was arrested in the UK for being an illegal immigrant.

In the additional case of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, a drunken man was wandering the corridors of a hospital. The police were called and they took him out to the police car where they arrested him for being drunk on the highway.

 

In these cases D can be convicted because he finds in a state of affairs rather than acting voluntarily here the actus reus is satisfied be being in a state of affairs rather than doing an act. Remember, state of affairs means AR is satisfied by rather than doing.