Understanding the Basics of Actus Reus

Understanding Actus Reus

The actus reus is the physical element required for a criminal offence. It can take three main forms: an act, an omission, or a state of affairs. For a crime to be committed, this prohibited conduct must be voluntary—the person must have control over their actions.

Some offences are conduct crimes (like theft), where simply performing the prohibited action is enough. Others are consequence crimes, where the defendant's conduct must cause a specific result, such as in assault offences. Then there are state of affairs crimes, where simply being in a particular situation (like possessing illegal drugs) constitutes the actus reus.

The voluntary nature of actus reus is essential. If someone has no control over their actions, they haven't committed the actus reus. In Hill v Baxter (1958), a driver lost control after being stung by bees, which raised questions about voluntariness.

Remember this: Even if someone is involuntarily brought into a situation (like being deported back to the UK against their will), they may still be liable if the actus reus involves a "state of affairs" they're responsible for, as seen in Larsonneur (1933).

Omissions as Actus Reus

Generally, failing to act (an omission) cannot make you guilty of an offence. This reflects the traditional view that the law shouldn't force people to be "good Samaritans" by helping others in emergency situations.

However, there are important exceptions where omissions can constitute actus reus. These occur when there is a legal duty to act. This duty can come from different sources:

Statutory duty exists when legislation specifically creates an obligation. For example, the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires drivers to stop and report accidents, while the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 requires parents to provide necessities for their children.

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 creates liability for household members who fail to protect victims of domestic violence. These laws create situations where failing to do something can make you criminally liable.

Worth noting: In Miller (1983), the House of Lords ruled that someone who creates a risk would only be expected to take reasonable steps to address it—they wouldn't be expected to put themselves in danger.

Duties to Act

Several types of relationships or situations create a duty to act, making omissions punishable:

A contractual duty can create criminal liability for omissions. In R v Pittwood (1902), a railway gatekeeper who failed to close gates as required by his job was found guilty of manslaughter when someone was killed at the crossing.

Family relationships often create duties. In R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918), a father and his partner were convicted of murder for starving his daughter to death. The father had a duty based on the parent-child relationship, while his partner had voluntarily undertaken care responsibilities.

When someone voluntarily assumes responsibility for another, they create a duty to care. In R v Stone and Dobinson (1977), defendants were convicted of manslaughter after failing to provide adequate care for a vulnerable relative living with them.

Important case: In R v Evans (2009), both a mother and half-sister were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after failing to seek medical help for a 16-year-old who overdosed on heroin. They had created a "state of affairs" by bringing the drugs and owed a duty of care to the victim.

Additional Duties and Special Situations

Official positions can create duties to act. In R v Dytham (1979), a police officer was convicted for misconduct in public office after failing to intervene or summon help when witnessing a fatal assault. However, police duties of care are generally limited—if they were too broad, it might discourage people from joining the force.

When someone creates a dangerous situation, they have a duty to address it. R v Miller (1983) demonstrates this principle—a man who accidentally started a fire by falling asleep while smoking was convicted of arson because he noticed the fire but simply moved to another room instead of dealing with it.

In DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2003), a defendant who denied having needles before a police search was convicted when an officer was injured by a needle in his pocket. His failure to warn created liability.

Fascinating exception: In some medical contexts, omissions may be lawful. In Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993), doctors were permitted to stop artificially feeding a patient in a persistent vegetative state because discontinuing treatment was deemed in his best interests.

Critiquing the Law of Omissions

The traditional definition of actus reus doesn't explicitly include omissions, leading the Law Commission to suggest "external element" as a more comprehensive term in its 1989 draft Criminal Code.

The debate around Good Samaritan laws highlights key tensions. On one hand, modern views of moral responsibility might favor requiring people to help others in danger. On the other hand, there are strong objections: Should ordinary citizens be forced to act as rescuers? In developed countries, professional emergency services (funded by taxpayers) already exist to perform rescue functions.

There's also concern that untrained individuals attempting to help might cause more harm than good. This balances against cases like R v Khan and Khan, where someone who supplied drugs to a user had a duty to summon medical help when that person collapsed.

Critical thinking point: Determining when a duty exists follows a specific legal process: a judge first determines if there's evidence of a duty, explains this to the jury, and then the jury decides if the facts prove the duty existed. This complex approach shows how carefully the law treats omission liability.