Introduction
Actus reus, a Latin term translating to "guilty act," represents a fundamental component of criminal liability. It refers to the physical element of a crime, comprising the actions or conduct that must be proven to establish that a crime has been committed. This principle operates alongside mens rea, the mental element, with both being necessary to establish culpability. A crime is not considered to have occurred without demonstration of the relevant conduct that is prohibited by law. This principle ensures that individuals are not held criminally accountable for their thoughts alone, but for the tangible actions that violate established legal norms. Establishing actus reus involves a careful consideration of the specific requirements of the offence and a precise analysis of the alleged conduct. The basic requirements include a voluntary act, or, in specific cases, an omission where a legal duty exists, and causation. The conduct must directly or substantially contribute to the prohibited result outlined by the offence. This definition and its requirements form the basis for prosecuting offences, with the required degree of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Components of Actus Reus
The principle of actus reus has several key components that must be satisfied in order to establish criminal liability. These include the conduct, or act itself, voluntariness, and, in cases where an omission is involved, the existence of a legal duty to act. In addition to these, it must be demonstrated that there is a link between the conduct and the consequences for which the accused is charged. These elements help create a comprehensive view of the physical aspects of an offence.
Conduct (Act or Omission)
The first requirement of actus reus is conduct, which can be an act or, sometimes, an omission. An act is a positive, voluntary movement of the body which contravenes the law. For example, striking a person or taking property can constitute a criminal act. Conversely, an omission is a failure to act where there is a legal duty to do so. For an omission to form the actus reus of a crime, that duty must be specifically defined. Examples include the duty of a parent to care for a child, established through common law, or the contractual duty of a railway gatekeeper, as seen in R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37. The distinction between acts and omissions is crucial because it defines the boundary of what conduct is actionable under law. The failure to act needs to be contrasted with situations in which a person does an act which creates a dangerous situation. For example, in R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161, the defendant, by accidentally starting a fire, created a duty to act, and his failure to do so formed the actus reus of arson.
Voluntariness
For the conduct to form the actus reus, it must be voluntary. This implies that the act must be a product of the individual’s free will and conscious control. An involuntary act, such as a movement caused by an epileptic fit or a physical compulsion, would not satisfy the requirement of actus reus. This is demonstrated by the concept of automatism. In Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91, the Court of Appeal clarified that automatism requires a "total destruction of voluntary control." Actions that are not voluntary, and thus do not constitute actus reus, include those that are a result of a stroke or reflex movements. Furthermore, automatism also provides a defense where mens rea is not present, therefore making both essential elements for criminal liability absent.
Causation
Causation is another essential component of actus reus, which establishes a link between the defendant's conduct and the prohibited outcome. In law, both factual and legal causation must be established. Factual causation is considered the “but for” test, indicating that the consequence would not have occurred "but for" the defendant’s actions. This is usually the primary test, but where there are multiple causes, it is possible for any single cause to satisfy the test, even if it is not the single or main cause of the harmful consequence. Legal causation, a separate requirement, specifies that the defendant’s action must be a substantial and operative cause of the consequence. As established in R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35, the defendant’s actions need only be a substantial and operating cause, but do not need to be the sole cause. A break in the chain of causation can occur with an intervening act (novus actus interveniens). An example of this is where there is a free, deliberate and informed act which completely breaks the chain between the act of the defendant and the resultant consequence. However, if an action is deemed to be a natural response to the defendant’s actions, such as in self-defence or preservation, it does not break the chain, as seen in R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279. The "egg-shell skull" rule established in R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446 also has relevance here and implies that defendants must "take their victims as they find them" and this includes any medical or religious beliefs that may impact the consequence of a wrongful act, as these beliefs and other circumstances do not break the chain of causation.
Specific Offence Actus Reus
The requirements of actus reus can be examined more carefully within the context of specific criminal offences. Specific conduct elements must be present for an offence to occur and satisfy the actus reus for the charges. Understanding these aspects is crucial for legal analysis and application. A detailed look at selected offences provides insight into these complexities.
Theft
The actus reus for theft, under the Theft Act 1968, requires the appropriation of property belonging to another. Appropriation is defined as the assumption of the rights of an owner, irrespective of whether the person came into possession of the property innocently, as shown in R v Morris [1983] 3 All ER 288. The act of swapping labels in a supermarket to obtain a lower price was also seen to constitute appropriation. The property must belong to another at the time of the theft, where another person has control or possession over it, with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of it. Furthermore in Davidge v Bennett [1984] Crim LR 297, a legal duty to pay money to an intended party will mean the money will legally belong to that party, even though it was in the hands of another party for purposes of making payment.
Assault and Battery
Assault and battery, often discussed together, have different requirements for their actus reus. Assault is the act that causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. The actus reus for this, as defined by Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439, includes words or acts which cause this apprehension. There does not need to be a physical contact, but there needs to be apprehension of immediate violence. Battery, on the other hand, requires an application of unlawful force to another person as stated in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374, any form of physical touching will satisfy the requirement, irrespective of the degree of force applied. The case also shows the implied consent for touching that is necessitated by daily life, such as touching someone to gain their attention, but that the touching must be within the boundaries of that type of contact and must not amount to a use of any undue force. Battery can also occur if someone acts as an agent to apply force to another, as in R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54 where the act of placing an iron bar in front of an escape route and turning off the lights caused people to be injured when they attempted to flee and thus satisfying the element of battery. Further cases such as DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 have held that an omission can amount to an assault where the conduct of the defendant has placed the victim at risk of harm. Although this may be controversial, the case demonstrates that the courts have shown a willingness to extend the scope of the actus reus to other areas, beyond a simple positive act.
Criminal Damage
The actus reus for criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, is satisfied where a person causes damage to the property of another. Property must have a proprietary right or an interest and it need not be permanent. This is clearly laid out in R v Gullefer [1990] 1 WLR 1063. The court have recognised that criminal damage includes instances in which property is devalued, such as by the action of graffiti or writing with pens. In R v Wenton [2010] EWCA Crim 2361 it was made clear that the act of damaging a property must give rise to the risk to life if the charge involves aggravated criminal damage. This was because the Court drew a line between the damage to the property and the act of the defendant and found that these acts should be viewed separately and not together in order to constitute an actus reus that can result in an aggravated criminal damage offence.
Murder
The actus reus of murder requires the unlawful killing of a human being. The unlawful element indicates that a killing with proper justification such as self-defence is not murder. The causal connection between the defendant's actions and the victim's death must be established as mentioned previously, so that if there is no proof that death was caused by the conduct of the accused, then the actus reus for murder cannot be made out. As held by Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789, there is a clear distinction between an act of euthanasia and an omission which will result in death and only the former is considered unlawful and to be considered murder.
Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Actus reus and mens rea are two distinct and essential elements of criminal liability that usually have to exist together. The actus reus is the physical element of the crime, and the mens rea is the mental element. Both need to be present for liability to be imposed.
Coincidence
The principle of coincidence is vital. This means that the actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time. However, the exact moment of concurrence is not essential when dealing with a series of acts that are part of a pre-conceived plan or a continuous act. For instance, in Thabo Meli v R [1954] 1 WLR 228, the defendants had intended to kill a victim, hitting him on the head and throwing the body off a cliff. The victim died as a result of the exposure to the elements, and not by the initial blows to the head. It was held that due to the whole process being part of a pre-conceived plan, that there was a temporal element which joined all of the actions together and constituted actus reus with the requisite mens rea. Furthermore, Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439 demonstrates that if the actus reus is considered to be a continuous act, the requirement of coincidence will be satisfied if mens rea is formed whilst the act is continuing.
Transferred Malice
The doctrine of transferred malice is important to note in the context of actus reus. This doctrine applies when the defendant intends to harm one person or piece of property but, instead, harms another. The mens rea is transferred from the intended target to the actual victim, as seen in R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359, where the defendant injured a bystander as a result of a blow that was intended for someone else. This is a valid transfer of mens rea, however the doctrine cannot be used where there are different kinds of offences, as was established in R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119 where malice to damage property, was not malice towards an individual.
No Mens Rea
Despite mens rea being a key element of criminal liability, in the case of offences of strict liability, this is not a requirement. In cases of strict liability, such as for traffic or public safety, there is no mens rea required for one or more elements of the actus reus. It has been argued by many academics that this undermines a core notion in criminal law that “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, as criminal liability is imposed without proof of culpability.
Conclusion
In summary, actus reus is a complex but crucial concept in criminal law. It encompasses not only the physical conduct of the defendant but also questions of voluntariness, omission, and causation. Cases concerning different offences such as theft, assault, and criminal damage demonstrate the significance of analysing the practical application of actus reus, and show that it is not a rigid and inflexible requirement that is applied in all instances. Actus reus must often also exist at the same time as mens rea, however the flexibility within the law means that there are instances when an offence is made out, despite the element of mens rea not being present. Understanding these core principles is essential for determining criminal liability, highlighting that the presence of the “guilty act” is the basis of criminal culpability. Furthermore, the requirement of the “guilty act” protects individuals from prosecution when only guilty thoughts are held. This makes actus reus an indispensable element for a just legal framework.
