User Mr Yusuf Mohamed Cassim Limalia

Module LAW717 - Foundations of Criminal Law - 13754 - AUT - 201910

Test Activity 1.1
Started 24/09/19 11:45
Submitted 26/09/19 11:06
Status Needs Marking
Attempt Score Mark not available.
Time Elapsed 47 hours, 20 minutes
Results Displayed All Answers, Submitted Answers, Correct Answers, Feedback
 Question 1

How would you define the term ‘Actus Reus?

Selected Actus Reus means the prohibited act or conduct which is required to be proven for someone to
Answer: be guilty of a crime.
Correct
Answer: The conduct element of the offence. What the defendant must be proved to have
done (or sometimes failed to do). In what circumstances, and with what
consequences in order to be guilty of a crime.
Also referred to as the ‘doing part’ of the crime i.e. stabbing someone – putting the
knife in. Actus reus identifies the conduct which the criminal law considers harmful.
Actus reus tells us what we CANNOT do.
Response [None Given]
Feedback:
 Question 2

Generally speaking, what are the key elements of Actus reus?

Selected The Elements of Actus Reus are:
Answer: 1) Proof that the defendant did the particular act
2) Proof that the act caused a particular result and
3) Proof that the act or result occured in certain circumstances.

Correct
Answer: Actus reus can be different depending on the crime but may involve 3
aspects:
Proof that the Defendant did a particular act;
Proof that the act caused a particular result and;
Proof that the act or result occurred in certain circumstances.
Voluntary act – Defendant must have committed act of his own free will
– Hill v Baxter. Lord Denning in Kay v Butterworth ‘the requirement is
that it should be voluntary is essential.’

Response [None Given]

Feedback:
 Question 3

‘An individual is not under a duty in criminal law to help someone who is in danger’ Using
appropriate legal authorities, explain to what extent this statement reflects the position in English
Criminal law.
Selected In English law there is no requirement for someone to assist another person in danger, except in
Answer: certain circumstances:
1) Where there is an assumption of responsibility - Bowditch Case
 2) Parent/ Child Relationship ( Under 18 years of age) - Steppard Case
3) If someone has created a source of danger- R V Miller
4) ownership or control over property - Tuck V Robson
Correct
Answer: Unless they are under a duty to act, and where by failing to act may give
rise to liability by omission. If there is a duty to act, the Defendant must
do what is reasonable, and what is reasonable is decided by the jury.
For example, a mother finds her child drowning and could save them,
she is expected to do so, but if to do so would be to put her life in danger,
then she would summon help.

Sometimes can be committed by Omission or a failure to act. Only guilty

for omission when you are under a duty to act:
Statutory duty
Law enforcement (Dytham)
Contractual duty (Pitwood)
Assumed duty (Stone v Dobinson) (Baby P case)
Ownership or control of Property (Tuck v Robinson)
Continuing Act (Fagan v Metropolitan Police)
Creation of the danger (Miller)
Response [None Given]
Feedback:
 Question 4

What are the tests the courts will use to establish causation?
Selected The test used are Substantial and Operating Causation.
Answer: Substantial means that the defendant act must be substantial cause of the resault. i.e it must
contribute to the end results to a significant extent- Hennigan Case
Operating Causation- The defendant act's must be an operating cause of the result. i.e a point
when the original act was too remote from the cause and so the act is no longer an operating
cause even if it is a but for cause.
Correct
Answer: Factual and legal causation
But For causation

“The defendant’s act is “a but” for cause of a result, if but for the
defendants act the result would not have occurred”

Dyson [1908]- victim suffering from Meningitis when Dyson injured them
causing their death. Held but for Dysons actions the victim would not
have died at the time and place that he did (NB not convicted of
murder/manslaughter due to old year and a day rule)

White [1910]- def put poison in victims drink- victim suffered heart attack
having taken a few sips…poison not related to the heart attack.. would
have died in exact same way at exact same time regardless- therefore
did not cause the death.

Problem with but for test= too wide. It is suggested that it should only be
used to say who is not responsible.
 Novus Actus/Breaking Chain of Causation

Definition = a free voluntary act of a third party which renders the original
act no longer a substantial and operating cause of the result.

Definition of a Novus actus

A does an act after which B does an act, then if B’s act is

Free, Voluntary and informed act; and
Renders A’s act no longer a substantial and operating cause
Then A will not have caused the result, and B’s act will be a novus actus

R v Latiff [1996] (HL) Lord Steyn “ The general principle is that the free
deliberate and informed intervention of a second person, who intends to
exploit the situation created by the first, but is not acting in concert with
him, is held to relieve the first actor of criminal responsibility”.

Free voluntary informed act:

Involuntary act = not a novus act
Justified act= not free voluntary or informed

Preserve own life or limb eg self-defence and transfer malice etc

Acting to assist law enforcement
Acts in accord with moral obligation. e.g. passer-by came across
injured person and tried to administer first aid but did so in such a way that in fact the victim
died, the passer-by may not break the chain of causation
c. Does not know circumstances of actions

Response
Feedback:

Alan knows that Ben cannot swim. He pushes Ben into the swimming pool, hoping
he will drown. Chris is a member of the public visiting the pool. He notices that Ben is
drowning, but decides to ignore it as he is finishing his coffee. David is also visiting
the pool. He too sees the incident and alerts the lifeguard, Eric. Eric does nothing.
Ben drowns.
1. Will Alan, Chris, David or Eric be considered to have fulfilled the actus reus element of any crime?

Alan will have fulfilled the actus reus element since his act was substantial cause of the result of Ben Drowning-
Henningan Case

Chis who was merely a member of the public was under to duty to act since English law does not punish
someone who does not assist someone on danger. There was no kin relationship with Ben,( Sheppard) nor was
Ben on his property, - Tuck V Robson

2. Would your answer be different if Chris was a doctor?

 Even If Chris was a doctor, there was no duty to act – R V Stone ; R V Dobinson

3. Would your answer differ if Eric was an off-duty policeman?

No.

-
Alan Pushes Ben to the swimming pool
A potential S39 CJA 1988 offence – Battery using a direct application of force
Actus Reus of the offence here is Alan’s action in pushing Ben. Alan here is acting of his own volition, a
voluntary act as in K v Butterworth.
(NB arguably there are two batteries here a) direct i.e. hand on body and push and b) when Ben hits the pool-
this is an indirect battery such as in Savage v Parmenter (battery via beer) or DPP v K (battery through acid in a
hand drier)
Chris is a member of the public visiting the pool. He notices that Ben is drowning, but decides to ignore it
as he is finishing his coffee.
Here you should identify an omission. Is Chris failing to act? Omission is only relevant if Chris owes Ben a duty
of care. Is Chris under a duty to act? – No- general rule applies therefore no liability- although perhaps a moral
duty etc.
David sees the incident and takes action in informing the lifeguard.
David may be under a moral obligation to try to save Ben himself if he was able, but is not under any duty to
act, and accordingly, cannot attract any liability for failure to act.

Eric is a lifeguard, he is made aware of Ben, and does nothing.

Omission failing to act
Duty to Act? Where would this duty arise? Is it possible that we could consider Eric’s position under the
judgement in Dytham, as similar to Law Enforcement?
More likely, you should identify the case of Pittwood which deals with contractual duty. Eric could be liable
under the terms of the contract of his employment, not just to the employer but also to the public at large.

Question
Write a draft answer of 750-1000 words to the following problem question:

John attended a football match and was looking for a fight with rival fans.

He shouted at a group of rival fans that their team was rubbish. One of the fans
from the rival group, Geoff, attacks John and punches him. This causes John to
fall over, and Geoff runs off.

Fred later kicks John, who is still on the ground, in the head several times.

Harry is a police officer and he sees what happens. He decides to do nothing as

he fears being assaulted.
John is taken to hospital after the incident and treated for head injuries. The
doctor treating him, Ian, administers a pain killing drug. John suffers from a
rare allergy, and dies instantly.
Discuss whether or not Geoff, Fred, Harry and Ian may have fulfilled the actus
reus of any crime