DEFINITIONS

DEFINITIONS & FOUNDATIONAL
ELEMENTS OF CRIME
Week II
Konina Mandal
Assistant Professor
BASIC ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. (no guilty act without a guilty
mind)
We approach the analysis of offences by means of two concepts with
Latin names, actus reus and mens rea.
Hence, two essential components:
 Actus reus (guilty act), and
 Mens rea (guilty mind).
Every crime which is legally specified and defined generally involves
the combined presence of both.
THE LIABILITY EQUATION
MENS REA
ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL
ACTUS REUS OR
DEFENCE LIABILITY
STRICT
LIABILITY
ACTUS REUS
 Can be defined as “such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent”
 Overt – Physical - External “event” distinguished from the conduct that
produced the result.
 Act must be VOLUNTARY – that said what about INVOLUNTARY ACTS?
 Act to be prohibited by law
 Act should result in harm
 Act to be direct cause of harm
 Application of specific requirements of Law
UNDERSTANDING VOLUNTARINESS wrt Actus Reus
 See, Section 39 – definition of Voluntarily
 Lack of intention to cause ACTUAL EFFECT caused = Voluntary Act

 If the effect is the PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE of act done by him =
Voluntary Act
 If particular effect could have been AVOIDED by due exercise of reasonable care
and caution, then effect of NEGLIGENT act = Voluntary Act
 Whether the effect of a particular act/omission was caused voluntarily is a

QUESTION OF FACT – determined case by case basis.
OMISSIONS
 Omissions are also ‘acts’ – The IPC makes omissions punishable

provided they are:
 illegal
 Have caused
 Intended to cause
 Or likely to cause an Actus Reus
 When person under DUTY to act recognized by criminal law +
blameworthy mind
CAUSATION
 Many factors contribute to a event. A factor is said to have caused a particular

event, if WITHOUT that factor, the event would not have occurred. Act must be
CAUSA CAUSANS (Immediate/Actual Cause)
 Some causal relationship has to be established between his conduct and
prohibited result. A man is usually held criminally liable only for the
consequences of his conduct as he FORESAW/ ought to have FORESEEN.
 Multiple Causation? Hard to link cause to effect.
 If result is too remote and accidental in its occurrence then there is no criminal
liability.
CAUSATION
FACTUAL
Established by applying the 'but for' LEGAL
test. - Established by showing that the
This asks, 'but for the actions of the accused persons act was an
accused, would the ‘operating and substantial' cause
of the consequence and that there
result/consequences have
was no intervening event.
occurred?’
-There are essential conditions to be
There must be a factual link between satisfied before applying this test.
the accused and the harm caused. ---the cause must be substantial to
However, a lot of times, it is not easy the extent that it is more than slight
to find factual causation or any direct ---accused must be blameworthy to
cause of death as the factual causation some extent
is extremely broad ---act must be operating at the time
when the liability arose.
But difficulties arise when there is something that happened after the accused person’s conduct, i.e. an
intervening factor. It should be noted that not every intervening factor amounts to a novus actus
interveniens which is ‘voluntary’ [4] and independent thus breaking the chain of causation.
Negligence, Minimal Causation
 Conduct of person was negligent

 BUT FOR the negligence on part of accused, result would not have occurred.
 Look at Section 304 A IPC
 Minimal Causation – When the death of a person is caused after medical

treatment, it cannot be said that the treatment was improper or inadequate or if
better treatment had been given, death would not have taken place. Doctor’s
intervention – minimal part in the whole transaction.
 See s.299 Explanation 2
Unexpected Interventions
 Breaks the causal chain – can create complications while fixing causation – however,
may have an effect on the degree or gravity of culpability depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Act of Victim
INTERVENIENS
NOVUS ACTUS
Act of 3rd Party

ACT PROHIBITED
CONSEQUECE
Natural events
Novus Actus
Interveniens
ACT OF VICTIM
 When the Act of the Victim is NOT FORSEEABLE = break in causal chain =
defendant liable.
 R V ROBERTS (1971) 56 CR APP R 95 – Robert made sexual advances towards the

victim – in apprehension of sexual assault – jumped – sustained injuries. Act of victim
not daft!
 “the chain of causation would only be broken if the victim committed an act so
unforeseeable that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee the act”
 R V WILLIAMS AND DAVIES [1992] 1 WLR 380 – Hitchhiker picked up by

defendants in car on way to Glastonbury Festival – attempted to rob him – he jumped
off – died. Held, defendents not liable as he did something pretty daft.
 “consider whether the victim’s act was within the range of reasonable responses
available to the victim in the circumstances. ”
ACT OF 3RD PARTY
Mostly cases of Medical Negligence are considered 3 rd party Acts
As a general rule, it would seem that omissions of a third party cannot break the chain
of causation.
For example, if you stabbed someone and a medic arrived but refused to treat the victim,
the medic’s omission (to treat the victim) would not break the chain of causation.
R V SMITH [1959] 2 QB 35
The defendant stabbed the victim with a bayonet during a fight in barracks. V's friend
took him to the first aid post, but on the way, he dropped V twice. At the first aid post the
medical officer was busy and took some time to get to V who died about two hours after
the stabbing. Had he been given proper treatment he would probably have recovered.
Held: The treatment he was given was thoroughly bad and might well have affected his
chances of recovery, but medical treatment correct or not does not break the chain of
causation. If at the time of death the original wound is still an operating cause and a
substantial cause, then death can be said to be a result of the wound albeit that some other
cause is also operating. Only when the second cause of death is so overwhelming as to
make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that death does not flow
from the wound.
R v. BLAUE [1975] 1 WLR 1411
After the victim refused the defendant’s sexual advances the defendant stabbed the victim four
times. Whist the victim was admitted to hospital she required medical treatment which
involved a blood transfusion. The victim was a Jehovah’s Witness whose religious views
precluded accepting a blood transfusion. She was informed that without a blood transfusion
she would die but still refused to countenance treatment as a result of her religious conviction.
The victim subsequently died and the defendant was charged with manslaughter by way of
diminished responsibility
Did the victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment constitute a novus actus interveniens and
so break the chain of causation between the defendant’s act and her death? Whether the test
laid down in R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 was to be applied because of an omission on
behalf of the victim.
The appeal was dismissed. The stab wound and not the girl’s refusal to accept medical
treatment was the operating cause of death. The victim’s rejection of a blood transfusion did
not break the chain of causation. The defendant must take their victim as they find them
and this includes the characteristics and beliefs of the victim and not just their physical
condition. (Egg shell skull rule )
Unlike in R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 the victim’s decision was an omission and not
a positive act and so the test was not of whether the omission was reasonably foreseeable. In
the case of omissions by the victim ‘egg-shell skull’ rule was to be applied. Even if R v
Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 is applied the victim’s response was foreseeable taking into
account their particular characteristics.
NO INTERVENING ACT
R v KENNEDY (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38
 The defendant and victim were living together in a hostel. The victim
visited the defendants room and asked for “a bit to make him sleep”. The
defendant prepared a dose of heroin for the victim, then passed him the
syringe so that he could self inject. The victim did so, and died several
hours later as a result of choking on his own vomit while under the
influence of the drug. The defendant was convicted of unlawful act
manslaughter and appealed.
 The key question before the House of Lords was whether the victim’s act
in self injecting was an intervening act such as to break the chain of
causation.
 HELD - the victim was a fully informed and consenting adult, who had
freely and voluntarily self-administered the drug without any pressure
from the defendant, this was an intervening act. The chain of causation
between the defendant’s act in supplying the drug and the victim’s death
was therefore incomplete. The reasoning of the House was based on the
need for the criminal law to respect free will and to treat the victim,
being an adult of sound mind, as an autonomous individual. The
defendant’s conviction was therefore overturned.
GOVINDASWAMY v STATE OF KERALA
 Refer to Mrinal Satish’s Article

DEFINITIONS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEFINITIONS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEFINITIONS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEFINITIONS & FOUNDATIONAL

 See, Section 39 – definition of Voluntarily

 Lack of intention to cause ACTUAL EFFECT caused = Voluntary Act

 Whether the effect of a particular act/omission was caused voluntarily is a

 Omissions are also ‘acts’ – The IPC makes omissions punishable

 Many factors contribute to a event. A factor is said to have caused a particular

 Conduct of person was negligent

 Minimal Causation – When the death of a person is caused after medical

Act of 3rd Party

 R V ROBERTS (1971) 56 CR APP R 95 – Robert made sexual advances towards the

 R V WILLIAMS AND DAVIES [1992] 1 WLR 380 – Hitchhiker picked up by

 Refer to Mrinal Satish’s Article

You might also like