Criminal Law Report: Actus Reus by Omission and Case Applications

Desklib provides past papers and solved assignments for students. This report analyzes Actus Reus by Omission in criminal law.

Criminal Law
1

Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Issue.............................................................................................................................................4
Rule..............................................................................................................................................4
Application..................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................8
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9
References......................................................................................................................................10
2

Introduction
Criminal law is a branch of law which ensures that the people of society understand the actions
that shall be considered as crimes and that the people who conduct such crimes are held allegedly
accountable. The criminal laws ensure that those who have been violated are given justice and
have a right to defend themselves. The criminal laws aim to protect the potential offenders for
committing crimes by imposing punishments and penalties on criminals. In this report, the
criminal laws are applied to the offenders and their applicable punishments and penalties have
been identified. The laws applicable are studied with reference to a case scenario and the focus
of the report is on understanding the concepts and application of ‘Actus Reus by Ommissions’.
3

Issue
John and Len gave Harry ‘heroin’ as the birthday treat. The ‘heroin’ turned out to be laced with
arsenic and as a result, Harry collapsed. John and Len were scared and therefore, they left Harry
lying on the ground and left. Further, John and Len went home by bus and that bus collapsed
with a tram because the person responsible for operating the barrier of crossing, Edward, was
engrossed in a football match on TV and forgot to close the crossing. The issue here is to identify
the individual liability of John, Len, and Edward.
Rule
The literal meaning of the term ‘actus reus’ is ‘guilty mind’. In criminal law, other than a
defendant’s state of mind, the term ‘Actus Reus’ includes various other elements of a crime.
Actus reus, in particular, consists of the result, conduct, a state of affairs and an omission. The
‘conduct’ can constitute to be criminal. When a person by his own conduct, performs a criminal
act, then he shall be held responsible for actus reus. the examples of conduct may include
perjury, theft, possession of drugs or firearm or rape. All these actions are criminal and therefore
constitute actus reus by conduct. Further, the actus reus may also relate to the result or outcome
of the actions or omissions of the defendant1. There are various circumstances in which the
individual may not do any criminal act by his conduct but the outcome of his actions may
constitute a criminal activity. Acts like manslaughter, assault, wounding, criminal damage and
such others are the actions which result in crime.
In addition to result and conduct, a state of affairs can also constitute a criminal act. There are
the crimes for which the actus reus consists of ‘being’ rather than ‘doing’. The examples of the
state of affair crimes may include ‘being’ in charge of a vehicle in a drunk state or ‘being’ an
illegal alien. Lastly, omission can also amount to actus reus of a crime. For this purpose, the act
of omission of the defendant must be voluntary2.
Actus Reus by omission
Based on the general rule, no person can be held guilty of an offense if an omission has taken
place. As explained by Stephen J., if A sees B drowning and did not extend his hand to save him,
1 E Finch and S Fafinski, Criminal Law (7th edn, Pearson, 2018).
2 Mark Dsouza, ‘Criminal culpability after the Act’ [2015]
4

then it cannot be said that A is guilty of actus reus. However, there are certain exceptions to this
rule. Such exceptions state the circumstances in which omission shall be considered as actus
reus. Among these exceptions, the first exception is a contractual duty3. It states a circumstance
where a person has a duty to perform an act and he fails to perform such act. In the event of his
failure to perform his act, he can be held criminally liable. For example, the railway crossing
keeper has a duty to shut the door when the train arrives and in case he fails to shut the door and
as a result, a person was killed by the train. This failure to perform duty shall hold him criminally
guilty. The second exception is duty because of a relationship. This is a situation in which a
person has a duty to perform an act due to the relationship. For example, a father of a child and
his mistress failed to provide food to the child. This resulted in the death of the child due to
starvation. Here, failure to perform the duty gave rise to actus reus.
The third exception to the rule is a duty which has been taken on voluntarily. This is a situation
where a person voluntarily undertakes the responsibility of performing the duty. In a case, an
elderly sister of defendants came to their place to live with them. Meanwhile, she became ill and
became unable to take care of herself. The defendants also failed to take care of her or to
summon help from others. As a result, she died. Subsequently, the defendants were convicted of
manslaughter. The fourth exception to the rule of omission is duty through one’s official
position4. This is a situation in which a person is held guilty because he omitted his official duty.
For example, a violent act is witnessed by a police officer on a victim. Instead of performing his
duty and intervening the act, he drove away from the place of incident. Under these
circumstances, the police officer was held guilty of neglecting his duties wilfully and without
reasonable excuse.
The last exception to the rule of omission is a duty which arises because a chain of events has
set in motion by the defendant. This is a situation in which a person is aware that he has created
3 Billy Sexton, ‘Criminal Law – Actus Reus & Mens Rea’ (All About Law, 21 July 2016) <
https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-actus-reus-mens-rea> accessed on 14
February 2019
4 M Risno, ‘Leaving Good Undone: Omissions in English Criminal Law’ (Medium, 24 May 2015) <
https://medium.com/@mistrec/leaving-good-undone-omissions-in-english-criminal-law-ae169b57b8e0>
accessed 14 February 2019
5

a situation which may be dangerous and yet perform no action to prevent the damage or harm
that may be caused as a result of his actions. In such circumstances, considering the original act
to be actus reus, such person shall be held liable for performing criminal acts. This area of law
may also be known as the doctrine of supervening fault. Practically, in such circumstances,
liability can be imposed on the defendant who may not have mens rea when the original act was
committed but they may have such mens rea when they omitted to take action to prevent the
harm that may be caused as a result of their action5.
Application
The facts of the given case are based on the law applicable to actus reus by omission. Generally,
no criminal liability is imposed in cases of omission. However, in some exceptional
circumstances, an act of omission attracts criminal liability6. In the given case, the individual
liability of John, Lee, and Edward are required to be discussed.
John, Len, and Harry were celebrating Harry’s birthday and Harry received ‘heroin’ as his
birthday present from John. Harry was not a drug user, so he passed the drug to Len to prepare.
The drug was prepared by Len and then he also injected the same in Harry’s arm using a syringe.
When Harry consumed the drug, he staggered into the street and collapsed. As it turned out, the
heroin consumed by John was laced with arsenic. In this situation, John and Len got scared and
ran off leaving Harry lying on the ground. Eventually, Harry was declared dead.
The given circumstances attract ‘duty which arises because a chain of events has set in motion by
defendant’. This situation can be related to a decided case of R. v Miller [1982] UKHL 67. In this
case, James Miller, a vagrant, was squatting and in an inner city area in Birmingham. With a
cigarette butt, he accidentally set fire on the mattress on which he was sleeping. In this situation,
rather than taking actions to put off the fire, he ran to another room and this resulted in more fire.
This caused extensive damage amounting to £800. As a result, he was convicted under Section 1
and 3 of Criminal Damage Act, 19718. In his defense, he stated that there was no coincidence in
5 Charlotte Burmby, ‘Crime: Liability For Omissions’ (The Student Lawyer, 2 January 2014) <
http://thestudentlawyer.com/2014/01/02/liability-for-omissions/> accessed on 14 February 2019
6 C Elloitt and F Quinn, Criminal Law (Louis Taylor, 9th edn, 2012).
7 UKHL 6 [1983] 1 All ER 978
8 Criminal Damage Act, 1971
6

actus rea and mens rea. However, he was held convicted for recklessly causing damage by
omission. In the judgment of the given case, it was established that the actus rea was constituted
from a series of events, beginning from the time when the fire was set and continuing to the time
when he recklessly omitted to extinguish it. Here, his omission to act constituted actus rea by
omission.
In the given case scenario, the actus rea was constituted by a series of events. John gifted
‘heroin’ to Harry as his birthday present. This action, in itself, is a crime. However, when he
found that Harry collapsed as a result of consumption of that ‘heroin’, then, instead of saving his
life, he ran from his responsibility. It was his duty to protect Harry but instead, he ran off.
Therefore, he is guilty of omission as he failed to perform the duty which arose as a result of a
chain of events which was set in motion by him.
Further, Len himself was a drug addict and he helped Harry to consume drugs. He prepared the
drug for him and injected those drugs in his veins using a syringe. Later, when Harry collapsed,
he got afraid and ran from the place of incident. He did not fulfill his duty of helping Harry.
Here, it can be stated that Len is also guilty of actus rea by omission as he had a duty to protect
Harry which he omitted to perform. He set the event in motion but did not care to prevent harm9.
In the other incident, Edward was responsible for operating the barrier at the tram level crossing.
He was engrossed in the football match on TV and when the tram was approaching, he omitted
to close the barriers. As a result, the tram hit a bus and the driver of the tram was killed. The
facts of this case can be related to the facts of R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 3710. In this case, an
individual was employed to operate the level crossing gate by a railway company. He lifted the
gate for letting a cart to pass but eventually, he forgot to shut it back. As a result, when a horse
and cart crossed the track during his absence, they were killed by the passing train. It was held
that the defendant had a contractual duty for ensuring that the door is closed and he omitted to
perform his duty. He was held liable for actus rea by omission.
9 All Answers ltd, 'Omission means a failure to act' (Lawteacher.net, 02 February 2018)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/tort-law/omission-means-a-failure-to-act.php?vref=1>
accessed 14 February 2019
10 19 TLR 37
7

The facts of this case are similar to the facts of a given case scenario. Edward was responsible to
close the gate at tram level crossing but he failed to perform his contractual duty. As a result, the
bus and tram hit each other and the tram driver died. He is guilty of actus rea by omission.
Conclusion
From the study of the above-discussed law, decided cases and facts of the case scenario, it can be
concluded that John and Len are guilty of actus rea by omission. They had a duty which arose as
a result of a chain of events set in motion by them. They omitted their duty and as a result, they
are guilty of criminal offense. Further, Edward had a contractual duty which he failed to perform.
As a result, he is guilty of actus rea by omission.
8

Conclusion
The case laws discussed above are highly relevant for understanding the application of actus rea
by omission. For the purpose of holding a person guilty of actus rea, it is not important to prove
that they had mens rea. A person may be held responsible for his actions even though he had no
intention to do such acts. The omission is not ordinarily punishable but for holding a person
responsible, his actions must fall under the category of its exceptions. Therefore, it can be
concluded that a person can be held guilty for his actions and such actions may include not
performing the expected duty or obligation.
9

References
 All Answers ltd, 'Omission means a failure to act' (Lawteacher.net, 02 February 2018)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/tort-law/omission-means-a-failure-to-
act.php?vref=1> accessed 14 February 2019
 Billy Sexton, ‘Criminal Law – Actus Reus & Mens Rea’ (All About Law, 21 July 2016)
< https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-actus-reus-mens-rea>
accessed on 14 February 2019
 C Elliott and F Quinn, Criminal Law (Louis Taylor, 9th edn, 2012).
 Charlotte Burmby, ‘Crime: Liability For Omissions’ (The Student Lawyer, 2 January
2014) < http://thestudentlawyer.com/2014/01/02/liability-for-omissions/> accessed on 14
February 2019
 Criminal Damage Act, 1971
 E Finch and S Fafinski, Criminal Law (7th edn, Pearson, 2018).
 M Risno, ‘Leaving Good Undone: Omissions in English Criminal Law’ (Medium, 24
May 2015) < https://medium.com/@mistrec/leaving-good-undone-omissions-in-english-
criminal-law-ae169b57b8e0> accessed 14 February 2019
 Mark Dsouza, ‘Criminal culpability after the Act’ [2015]
 R v Miller. [1982] UKHL 6 [1983] 1 All ER 978
 R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
10