The Meaning of Actus Reus and the Chain of Causation

The Meaning of Actus Reus and the Chain of Causation

The term actus reus is Latin for ‘the guilty act’. It is essential in

criminal law, as actus reus must be there for their to be a criminal

offence. It can mean a guilty act or an omission to act. In the crime

of murder, then the actus reus would be the killing of a human being.

The act must be voluntary for the defendant to be guilty. For example,

if the defendant acts out of reflex because of another force, it is

not voluntary and the defendant cannot be found guilty. A good example

can be found in the case of Hill v Baxter (1958) where a driver is

being chased by a swarm of bees and driving a car in these conditions

would be extremely hard so could not be held guilty for his actions.

If the defendant is to be found guilty of an offence then it is

important to prove that the defendant caused the offence in the first

place. This is the chain of causation, and means that there must be a

clear and unbroken link between the conduct and the consequence. For

example, if a defendant attacked a victim and the victim dies then the

chain of causation has not been broken and the defendant is guilty of

murder. However, if the defendant attacks the victim and the ambulance

has a crash on the way to the hospital then the chain of causation has

been broken. To see if the defendant is still to be found guilty we

can take into account the ‘but for’ test. This decides ‘but for’ the

action of the defendant, would the consequence still have happened. In

this case, the answer is no as the victim wouldn’t have had to be

taken to hospital ‘but for’ the actions of the defendant so he is

still guilty. ...

... middle of paper ...

...klessness. It is the lower level of

mens rea and is the taking of an unjustifiable risk. It is broken down

into subjective recklessness and objective recklessness.

Subjective recklessness is the taking of an unjustifiable risk when

the defendant realises that there is a risk but still carries out the

action. An example of this is the R V Cunningham 1957 case, where the

defendant tore off a gas meter from his cellar wall to steal the money

inside it. The gas leaked and drifted up through the next house and

injured a woman. The defendant did nothing to stop the as leak. He was

being reckless and realising that a possibility of harm may result.

Objective recklessness is where an unjustifiable risk is taken but the

defendant does not realise that there is a risk, but an ordinary

reasonable man would recognise the risk.