## Introduction

Actus reus, the “guilty act”, is the physical element of a crime. It covers what the defendant did (or failed to do) and any required consequences of that behaviour. Alongside mens rea (the mental element), it forms the basis of criminal liability in most offences. In short: thoughts alone are not punishable; the prosecution must prove conduct that meets the offence’s requirements, usually beyond reasonable doubt.

Actus reus typically involves:

- Conduct (a positive act or, in limited situations, an omission)
- Voluntariness (the act must be under the defendant’s control)
- Causation (a factual and legal link between the conduct and any prohibited result)

Many offences also require coincidence, meaning the actus reus and mens rea must overlap in time. There are exceptions, such as strict liability offences, where mens rea is not needed for one or more elements.

## What You'll Learn

- What actus reus means and how it fits with mens rea
- When omissions can amount to the actus reus and common sources of legal duty
- How voluntariness and automatism affect liability
- How to prove causation: “but for” and legal causation, including intervening acts
- Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea, continuing acts, and one-transaction scenarios
- Transferred malice and its limits
- Offence-specific elements for theft, assault and battery, criminal damage, and murder
- Practical steps for applying these rules in problem questions

## Core Concepts

### Conduct: Acts and Omissions

- Acts: Most offences are committed by a positive act, such as striking a person or taking property.
- Omissions: A failure to act can amount to actus reus only where a legal duty exists. Common sources include:
  - Duties from special relationships (e.g., caring for a child)
  - Contractual duties (R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37, railway gatekeeper omitted to close the gate)
  - Duties voluntarily assumed (e.g., caring for a vulnerable person)
  - Statutory duties (e.g., duties under road traffic or child protection legislation)
  - Duties arising from creating a dangerous situation (R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161, starting a fire created a duty to mitigate the danger)
- Key point: No general duty to rescue. Liability for an omission arises only where a recognised duty is present and the failure to act is a substantial cause of the prohibited result.

Tip: When you see an apparent omission, ask: is there a clear, recognised duty? If not, the omission cannot usually found liability.

### Voluntariness and Automatism

- Voluntary conduct: The act must be under the defendant’s voluntary control. Reflex actions, spasms, or movements during a seizure generally do not qualify.
- Automatism: Where there is a total loss of voluntary control, there may be automatism (Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91). Partial or impaired control is not enough.
- Practical effect: If conduct is involuntary, actus reus is not established. Separately, automatism can also negate mens rea (subject to the type of automatism and the offence charged).

### Causation: Factual and Legal

- Factual causation: The “but for” test — would the consequence have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct?
- Legal causation: The conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the result (R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35). It need not be the only cause.
- Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens):
  - Actions of third parties: Usually break the chain only if free, deliberate, and informed, and sufficiently independent of the defendant’s conduct.
  - Victim’s actions: Reasonable acts of self-preservation or escape do not break the chain (R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279).
  - The thin skull rule: Defendants take victims as they find them (R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446), including physical, psychological, and religious characteristics.
- Medical treatment: Ordinary negligent treatment usually does not break the chain if the original wound remains a substantial and operating cause (Smith). Only exceptional, independent, and overwhelming treatment errors might do so.

### Coincidence and Transferred Malice

- Coincidence (contemporaneity):
  - The actus reus and mens rea usually must coincide in time.
  - Continuing acts: If the actus reus continues, mens rea formed during that continuing act can suffice (Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439).
  - One transaction: A series of acts forming a single transaction can be treated as one (Thabo Meli v R [1954] 1 WLR 228).
- Transferred malice:
  - If the defendant intends or is reckless as to harming one person, but harms another, mens rea transfers (R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359).
  - It cannot transfer between fundamentally different offences (R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119).

## Key Examples or Case Studies

- R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37
  - Context: Railway gatekeeper failed to close a gate; a carriage crossed the line and a death followed.
  - Key point: Contractual duty can ground liability for an omission.
  - Application: Check employment or service contracts for duties to act.

- R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161
  - Context: Defendant accidentally started a fire and failed to take steps to extinguish or call for help.
  - Key point: Creating a dangerous situation imposes a duty to act. Failure to do so can complete the actus reus.
  - Application: Where a defendant causes a hazard, look for a subsequent omission.

- Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91
  - Context: Lorry driver in a trance-like state after prolonged driving.
  - Key point: Automatism requires total destruction of voluntary control. Reduced awareness is not enough.
  - Application: Distinguish between impaired control and total loss of control.

- R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
  - Context: Soldier stabbed; subsequent treatment arguably poor.
  - Key point: Defendant’s act must be a substantial and operating cause. Ordinary treatment does not sever causation.
  - Application: Don’t be too quick to find a break in the chain due to medical care.

- R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
  - Context: Defendant used a victim as a shield; police returned fire and killed her.
  - Key point: Reasonable acts of self-defence or law enforcement do not break the chain.
  - Application: Treat protective reactions as foreseeable consequences.

- R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446
  - Context: Victim, a Jehovah’s Witness, refused a blood transfusion after being stabbed.
  - Key point: The thin skull rule applies to beliefs as well as physical conditions.
  - Application: Accept the victim as found; do not discount the defendant’s role because of the victim’s vulnerabilities.

- Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439
  - Context: Car wheel on officer’s foot; mens rea formed after initial contact.
  - Key point: Continuing act allows later-formed mens rea to coincide with the actus reus.
  - Application: Consider whether the act continued when mens rea developed.

- R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 and R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119
  - Context: Latimer — blow intended for A hit B; Pembliton — stone intended to hit people broke a window.
  - Key point: Transferred malice applies within the same offence type (e.g., person to person), but not between different offence types (person to property).
  - Application: Match the type of harm intended with the harm caused.

## Practical Applications

How to analyse actus reus in problem questions:

1. Identify the conduct
   - Is there a positive act? If not, is there a recognised legal duty to act?
   - If an omission is alleged, specify the duty source: statute, contract, relationship, assumption of care, or creation of danger (Pittwood; Miller).
2. Test voluntariness
   - Was the act under voluntary control?
   - Consider automatism only where there is total loss of control (AG Ref (No. 2 of 1992)).
3. Prove causation (where a result is required)
   - Factual: Apply the “but for” test.
   - Legal: Was the conduct a substantial and operating cause?
   - Evaluate intervening acts: third parties, victim behaviour, medical treatment; apply Pagett and Blaue.
4. Check coincidence with mens rea
   - Is there overlap? If not, assess continuing acts (Fagan) or one-transaction scenarios (Thabo Meli).
5. Consider transferred malice
   - If the harm fell on someone else (or different property) than intended, see whether the offence type aligns (Latimer vs Pembliton).
6. Note strict liability
   - For certain regulatory or public welfare offences, mens rea is not required for some elements. Still, confirm conduct and any required result.

Offence snapshots:

- Theft (Theft Act 1968)
  - Actus reus: Appropriation of property belonging to another.
  - Appropriation: Assuming any rights of the owner (R v Morris [1983] 3 All ER 288).
  - Belonging to another: Property can “belong” where another has possession or control, or a proprietary right. Money given for a specific purpose can belong to the intended payee (Davidge v Bennett [1984] Crim LR 297).

- Assault and battery
  - Assault: Causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force (Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439). Words can suffice.
  - Battery: Application of unlawful force, however slight (Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374). Everyday jostling is generally impliedly consented to.
  - Battery via indirect force: Setting a trap can amount to battery (R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54).
  - Omissions and risk creation: An omission may suffice where the defendant creates a risk and fails to avert it (DPP v Santana‑Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin)).

- Criminal damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971)
  - Actus reus: Destroying or damaging property belonging to another.
  - “Damage” includes temporary impairment of value or usefulness (e.g., graffiti or paint): see cases such as Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735 and Hardman v CC Avon & Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330.
  - Aggravated criminal damage: Where life is endangered by the damage (R v Wenton [2010] EWCA Crim 2361 clarifies the separation between the damage and the life-endangering act).

- Murder
  - Actus reus: Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace, with causation proved.
  - Distinguish acts from omissions: Withholding treatment in certain clinical settings may be lawful (Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789). Self-defence or lawful killing is not “unlawful”.

Exam and practice tips:

- Name the precise component you are addressing (conduct, voluntariness, causation). Do not conflate them.
- For omissions, state the duty’s source and the factual basis establishing it.
- Always separate factual and legal causation. Use case law to justify whether the chain is intact or broken.
- If the timeline looks messy, test both continuing act and one-transaction reasoning.
- Keep offence definitions tight. For theft, specify appropriation, property, belonging to another; for assault/battery, differentiate apprehension vs contact.

## Summary Checklist

- Define the actus reus for the specific offence before applying facts
- Identify whether the conduct is an act or an omission; if an omission, specify the legal duty
- Confirm voluntariness; consider automatism only if control was totally lost
- Apply factual causation: “but for” the conduct, would the result have happened?
- Apply legal causation: was the conduct a substantial and operating cause?
- Test for intervening acts; apply Pagett and the thin skull rule in Blaue
- Ensure coincidence with mens rea; consider continuing acts and one-transaction analysis
- Consider transferred malice and its limits between offence types
- Note any strict liability elements that remove the need for mens rea

## Quick Reference

| Concept            | Authority                                | Key point                                               |
| ------------------ | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
| Omission duties    | R v Pittwood [1902]; R v Miller [1983]   | Duty from contract or creating danger can ground AR     |
| Voluntariness      | AG Ref (No. 2 of 1992) [1994]            | Automatism needs total loss of control                  |
| Legal causation    | R v Smith [1959]                         | Must be a substantial and operating cause               |
| Intervening acts   | R v Pagett (1983); R v Blaue [1975]      | Natural responses don’t break chain; thin skull applies |
| Coincidence        | Fagan v MPC [1969]; Thabo Meli [1954]    | Continuing act and one transaction can align AR/MR      |
| Transferred malice | R v Latimer (1886); R v Pembliton (1874) | Transfers within same offence type only                 |

Actus Reus: Definition, Requirements and Examples