LAW 1008 – Criminal Law

Question: Discuss about the LAW 1008 for Criminal Law? Answer: An actus reus can comprise of more than only an act, it involves every one of the components of the offense. However, it does not include the state of mind of the defendant. Contingent upon the offense, this might incorporate the situations and circumstances and in which it was conferred, including the consequences of the final outcome. For instance, the crime of assault requires unlawful sex by a person without the consent of the other person. The absence of assent is an encompassing situation which exists autonomously of the accused individuals act[1]. Thus, the act might be an act of the actus reus of various crimes, contingent upon its consequences. Stabbing somebody, for instance, might be a kind of actus reus of homicide if the victim dies, or of bringing on grievous bodily harm (GBH) if the victim survives; the accused conduct is the same in both cases, yet the consequences of it dictate whether the actus reus of homicide or GBH has been conferred[2]. In case the accused or the concerned person is to be discovered guilty of a crime, then the persons conduct in carrying out the actus reus is more likely to be voluntary than not. A conduct will typically just be viewed as involuntary where the accused was not in control of their body and here the defense of insanity or automatism might be accessible. Another instance of involuntary behaviour is noticed when the accused seems to be under a great degree of pressure from another person, that includes blackmail. Here the defense of duress becomes available once the duress gets proved[3] Actus reus gives rise to three different aspects, namely causation, omission and state of affairs. It can be said that the result of the crime raises the issue of causation: the outcome must be demonstrated to have been caused by the defendant's act. In the event that the outcome is caused by an interceding act or occasion, which was totally detached with the defendant's act and which couldn't have been predicted, the defendant won't be liable. Where the outcome is caused by a blend of the defendant's act and the mediating act, and the defendant's act remains a generous cause, then the person will be liable. A significant part of the case law on the issue of causation has emerged in the connection of homicide[4]. Factual causation is an aspect of causation that is applied with the help of the but for test. The question asked here is whether or not the result would have occurred But for the action of the accused? If the answer is yes then the defendant is not held liable. But in case the answer is no then the defendant is liable and their actions becomes the factual cause of the result[5]. A relevant case study is R v White [1910] 2 KB 124. Under this, the legal causation states that the harm that is brought about needs to be the result of the culpable act, as stated in R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273. However in case of strict liability, this rule is not applicable. Also the defendants action does not necessarily be the only cause for the resultant harm, however it needs to be more than minimal as stated in R v Benge (1865) 4 F. F 504[6]. The law of murder as set out in common law and the actus reus applicable to murder considered to be the unlawful killing of a human individual in the Queens pace with aforethought malice. The mens rea associated with murder is the aforethought malice which includes the intention to kill or the intention to cause grievous bodily harm[7]. Only partial defenses are applicable in case of murder which includes diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact under the Homicide Act 1957[8]. Some killing might be legitimized in law, for example, killings occuring because of self defense or in the counteractive action of crime, inasmuch as reasonable force has been worked out. Additionally a few killings might be approved, for instance amid wartime or legal executions. Certain killings might be the aftereffect of an omission. The actus reus of homicide might be available if a person has a duty to act, neglects to do as such and a death happens. Said duties might be forced in numerous ways. In the case of Eugene, his attack on Chris severed his artery. But Chris dies because he refused to stitch his wound and bled to death. Eugene does not have a lot of defense to save himself other than stating that the chain of causation was broken because Chris could would have been alive had he chosen to stitch up his wound which he refused. An example of R v Dear [1996] Crim LR 595[9] should be looked into. In this case, the court of appeal dismissed the appeal and cited Blaue, R v [1975] CA, Cheshire, R v [1991] CA, Malcherek Steel, R v [1981] CA, Smith, R v [1959] CMAC stating that the main question remains if an injury inflicted by a defendant becomes a significant cause or has contributed to the death. It does not prove to be helpful to juries in case it was required by the law to decide upon the causation by intending to distinguish the self neglect of the victim which is not a break in chain and the gross neglect which is a break in chain[10]. Chris had severed his artery be cause of Eugenes attack on him. Since Eugenes attack on Chris made a significant contribution to his death any partial defense may also not be applicable here because Eugene states that even though it was not his intention to harm Chris, nevertheless he was aware that he might. Even in the second case the actus reus of omission remains because Freddy was at Rickys house after delivering the heroin when Ricky was injecting it. Even after realizing Ricky was overdosed and needed medical help, Fred leaves the house without calling for help that leads to Rickys death. This is akin to the case of R v Khan Khan [1998] Crim LR 830 Court of Appeal[11]. Here also the actus reus of the offence was omission on the part of Freddy to call for medical help and not supply the heroin to Ricky. Bibliography Blomsma J,Mens Rea And Defences In European Criminal Law(Intersentia 2012) Dine J, Gobert J and Wilson W,Cases And Materials On Criminal Law(6th edn, Oxford University Press 2010) Elliot C and Quinn F,Criminal Law(9th edn, Longman 2012) Emanuel S,Criminal Law(Aspen Publishers 2010) Jefferson M,Criminal Law(Pearson Longman 2007) Martin J,Unlocking Criminal Law(Taylor Francis 2013) Reed A and Bohlander M,Participation In Crime(Ashgate PublishingCompany 2013) Reed A and Bohlander M,Loss Of Control And Diminished Responsibility(Ashgate Pub 2011) Wells C, Quick O and Lacey N,Reconstructing Criminal Law(Cambridge University Press 2010) [1] Michael Jefferson,Criminal Law(Pearson Longman 2007). [2] Catherine Elliot and Frances Quinn,Criminal Law(9th edn, Longman 2012). [3] Steven Emanuel,Criminal Law(Aspen Publishers 2010). [4] Catherine Elliot and Frances Quinn,Criminal Law(9th edn, Longman 2012). [5] Michael Jefferson,Criminal Law(Pearson Longman 2007). [6] Jacqueline Martin,Unlocking Criminal Law(Taylor Francis 2013). [7] Jeroen Blomsma,Mens Rea And Defences In European Criminal Law(Intersentia 2012). [8] Alan Reed and Michael Bohlander,Loss Of Control And Diminished Responsibility(Ashgate Pub 2011). [9] Janet Dine, James J Gobert and William Wilson,Cases And Materials On Criminal Law(6th edn, Oxford University Press 2010). [10] Janet Dine, James J Gobert and William Wilson,Cases And Materials On Criminal Law(6th edn, Oxford University Press 2010). [11] Alan Reed and Michael Bohlander,Participation In Crime(Ashgate PublishingCompany 2013).