The actus reus may be –
⦁ an act of commission or omission simpliciter
⦁ or an act considered together with the surrounding circumstances – for instance, with respect to the offence of stealing, it is not merely the act of taking an item belonging to another that is prohibited, but a taking under some circumstance, i.e. without the consent of the owner
Sometimes the actus reus involves a mental component – for instance, in the case of the offence of possession of narcotic substances, mere physical or manual possession does not render the accused culpable – the actus reus includes a mental requirement that the accused had knowlegde of the nature and quality of what he possessed.
Sometimes the actus reus does not require the doing of an overt act – a negative course of conduct sometimes constitutes the actus reus – in this situation the not doing becomes the actus reus – this is what is termed, criminal omissions.
Sometimes, the actus reus is neither constituted by an act or omission, but by a status – the state of being in something or being something – e.gs are the old common law offence of being a vagrant, and the offence of possession.
No matter the form it takes, the actus reus must be committed voluntarily for liability to arise – that is the person’s muscular contractions and movements must be accompanied by his cognitive faculties – that is, the accused must engage in the act on his free will or choice, and not out of external pressure or force .
The insistence on the voluntariness of the commission of the actus reus implies that involuntary acts cannot form the basis of criminal liability.
Thus, for instance, acts done in situations of the absence of volition (will or desire) will not do – these situations include situations of duress or coercion or where a person is not in control of his mental faculties – instances include:
⦁ where a person is employed as an involuntary agent in the commission of a crime
⦁ acts done in situations of unconsciousness like somnambulism or epileptic fit R v Charlson
Involuntary acts are sometimes referred to as automatism – that is, an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion, or an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleep-walking. However, an act is not to be regarded as involuntary simply because the doer does not remember it – after-the-fact amnesia is no defence if the doer was conscious of what he was doing at the time in question. Then again, an act is not involuntary simply because it is unintentional or that its eventual consequences were unforeseen. A man charged with driving dangerously cannot be heard saying that he didn’t mean to drive dangerously. R v Bratty.
Still on the point of voluntariness, sometimes the accused may plead that they are not responsible for their actions not because they lost control of their cognitive faculties as a result of natural causes but as a result of external factors, such as a failure to take a prescribed drug (non-insane automatism)
⦁ here, although their actions are involuntary so to speak, yet they brought it upon themselves through their own irresponsibility – thus, the general attitude of the law is to view such so-called involuntary conduct with skepticism. R v Hennessy
A duty to act may arise in several instances
⦁ a duty to act may be imposed on a person by law
⦁ a duty may also arise where one enters into a contract to perform a task
⦁ other times, a duty is deliberately assumed by a person in circumstances recognized by the law as giving rise to a duty
⦁ for instance, if one decides to care for a helpless person, that decision to assist stands as a message to the whole world that one has taken charge of the situation – therefore, one may not abandon the helpless person because the law would enforce the decision to assist
However, an omission to act would not inculpate a person where that failure to act was not by a conscious exercise of will or by a deliberate decision Kilbride v. Lake
CAUSATION
For a person to be found culpable for a crime, there must be established a causal connection between the accused and the act or omission that constitutes the actus reus. In the absence of this link, a person cannot be held liable for the particular offence.
Causation, therefore, is the result of a person’s action or inaction – the law looks to see whether we can link the event with one’s act. Causation is governed by sections 13, 64 and 81 of Act 29.
SECTION 13 OF ACT 29- CAUSING AN EVENT
⦁ If a person intentionally or negligently makes an involuntary agent to cause an event the person is deemed to have caused the event himself
⦁ Involuntary agent means an animal, thing or person who cannot be liable for a crime by reason of infancy, insanity or something else under this provision
R v MICHAEL: In this case, the accused, a single mother seeking to kill her baby gave a bottle of laudanum to another woman named Stevens to be administered to the child a teaspoonful every night. Stevens left the bottle on top of a shelf and another child of five years, who came into contact with the bottle, administered half of its contents to the baby. As a result, the baby died.
HELD: the Court held the accused liable for the murder of the child as the five year old was found to be an involuntary agent and his act was akin to administration by the accused herself.
QUEEN v SAUNDERS
⦁ If an event was caused negligently or intentionally by a group of persons either jointly or independently they would be deemed to have caused the event. However any defense available on any of the persons would have effect on his case regardless of the fact that the other persons might not have that defense
IN OTHER WORDS;
Where an event is caused by the acts of several persons acting jointly or independently, each of the persons who intentionally or negligently contributed to cause the event has caused the event. Each of the parties can however prove defence on their part
Sene v Republic– the appellants were brothers. The first was engaged in an unlawful fight with the deceased. The second appellant threw a stone at the deceased and after the first started raining blows on him. Appeal was allowed because the trial erred by placing emphasis on who started the fight and it was held that the defense of provocation should have been brought up. Conviction of manslaughter substituted for murder.
REPUBLIC v YEBOAH: The accused was seen leading a group of men chasing after an unknown man, shouting, ‘thief’ ‘thief’. The next day, the unknown man was seen severely battered lying unconscious on the ground. He died later at a hospital and the doctor predicted the cause of death as brain concussion as a result from an attack with a blunt or sharp object. The accused was arrested and charged with his death. On a submission of no case, HELD: The Court held that there were no evidence to show which of the acts of the perpetrators caused the deceased’s death and as such it was upheld
⦁ A person shall not be convicted for negligently or intentionally causing an event if the event would not have occurred but for the existence of some circumstance which was not taken into and had no reason to be taken into consideration
IN OTHER WORDS;
A person shall not be deemed to have cause an event irrespective of his act, but for the intervention of any other event or by any person or the set of facts or any event that the accused did not take into consideration and did not have a reason to, that event will not have happened.
R v Jordan-The defendant stabbed the victim. The victim was taken to hospital where he was given anti-biotics after showing an allergic reaction to them. He was also given excessive amounts of intravenous liquids. He died of pneumonia 8 days after admission to hospital. At the time of death his wounds were starting to heal. It was held that he victim died of the medical treatment and not the stab wound. The defendant was not liable for his death.
R v CATO: The accused together with the deceased, after a night-out, administered bouts of heroin to themselves by one on another throughout the night. They fell very ill the next morning and the deceased died, with the accused surviving. He was charged with manslaughter. HELD: The court held that, the acts of the accused as well as the deceased were reckless and he should have taken into consideration that it could cause harm. The court also held that de minimis contribution to causing an event will not suffice for the purposes of establishing a criminal liability for that event
R v SMITH
⦁ However this does not apply for someone who caused an event by omitting to perform a duty
R v Pittwood-The defendant was employed by a railway company to man the gate at a level crossing. The defendant lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass and then went off to lunch failing to put it back down. A train later collided with a horse and cart killing the train driver. The defendant was liable for the death of the train driver as it was his contractual duty to close the gate.
⦁ A person who causes a voluntary agent to cause an event within the jurisdiction while he is outside the jurisdiction is deemed to have caused the vent within the jurisdiction
⦁ Subject to this act, it is a question of fact whether an event was reasonably and fairly caused by a person’s act
R v Yeboah– the accused was seen leading a crowd shouting ‘thief’. The next morning a man was found unconscious in the direction of the chase. The man died and the accused was arrested. It was held that there was no evidence connecting the death to the accused
⦁ A person would not be relieved from liability from an attempt to cause an event negligently even if the act did not cause an event
R v White– The defendant put some poison in his mother’s milk with the intention of killing her. The mother took a few sips and went to sleep and never woke up. Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison. The defendant was not liable for her murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death. He was liable for attempt.
The rule here is that, A would still be liable and the act of concealment will not be held to have broken the chain of causation
THABO MELI v THE QUEEN
SECTION 64- CAUSING DEATH
⦁ A person would be liable for the death of a person if the harm he inflicted caused the person to die. It does not matter if the person would have died sooner Twum v Republic– The deceased, a healthy and able-bodied police constable, was hit in the face by the appellant. The deceased fell down and bled from the nose and mouth. He was admitted in an unconscious state to a hospital where he died the next day. It was found out the man had oedema which would have killed him later. The accused was liable.
⦁ It does not matter if the person would not have died for some factors such as age, infancy, disease, intoxication or the state of mind of the person at time harm was caused
R v Hayward– The defendant chased his wife out of the house shouting threats at her. She collapsed and died. He did not physically touch her. She was suffering from a rare thyroid condition which could lead to death where physical exertion was accompanied by fright and panic. Both the defendant and his wife were unaware she had this condition. The defendant was liable for constructive manslaughter as his unlawful act (assault) caused death.
⦁ It does not matter if the person would not have died if he had sought medical or surgical treatment or the treatment was done negligently or improperly unless the person had no disregard for his own health
R v Blaue– The appellant stabbed a little girl he had wanted to have sexual intercourse with. She was rushed to the hospital. At the hospital she refused to receive a blood transfusion which was essential to keep her alive since she was a witness. She died a few hours later and the appellant was convicted of murder. In dismissing the appeal Lawson l.j. held that the maxim take your victim as you find them included the whole man not just the physical man. Thus the question was the cause of death the answer the stab wound.
R v HOLLAND
⦁ A person would still be liable for the death of a person even if death resulted from the medical or surgical treatment of the harm unless such treatment was overly negligent or death could not have been foreseen as a likely to result from the treatment
However if the treatment administered to the deceased is inadequate it does not exonerate the accused from the harm caused which has led to the death of the deceased.
R v Smith– accused stabbed man. On the way to the infirmary the man was dropped several times. At the infirmary he was given incorrect treatment and he died. Accused was held liable at the wound was still the operating cause at the time of death.
R v MALCHEREK, R v JORDAN
R v BASARE
The accused was caught stealing cocoa by the deceased from his house. When the deceased followed him to recover the stolen cocoa bag the accused shot him. He was admitted at the hospital but died a weeks later due to injury to his lower abdomen. Counsel for the accused contended that the accused should be acquitted as the cause of death should be inadequate medical treatment but not the gun shot by the accused.
The court of appeal with Granville Sharp delivering the judgment rejected this contention. He held that death resulting from treatment of a wound unlawfully inflicted does not however inadequate exonerate the person who inflicted the wound from the consequences of his act, unless the treatment itself amounts to murder or manslaughter.
⦁ A person would not be liable for the death of a person the time between the death and the harm inflicted is over a year and a day. If it is within, the person is liable R v Dyson- appellant brutally beat three month old baby fracturing the skull. Later he again beat the baby and it died later of Death was said to have caused by fracture to skull sixteen months before. Appellant was not liable as death took place more than a year and a day after
SECTION 81-EXCEPTIONS TO CAUSING AN EVENT
⦁ A person would not be liable for harm caused to a person by refusing to supply the person with the necessaries of life and health unless it is shown that by reason of age, physical or mental state of mind, control of the person by the accused or in the circumstances the person could not have reasonably helped himself
R v Senior– appellant refused to seek medical assistance for child and as a result the child died. The appellant belong ‘the peculiar people’ who believed it was sinful to seek the help of a physician. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter.
⦁ A person would not be culpable for disease or disorder caused to a person by grief, terror or other emotion caused by the person regardless of whether the person had intent to cause harm or otherwise.
R v Nwaoke– appellant pointed a ‘juju’ at his wife and threatened her that it would kill her if she did not bring the ‘head money’ he had paid to marry her. The deceased hanged herself later because she was terrified. The appellant was not liable although he was the one to induce the terror that led the woman to kill herself. Her death was not the act of the appellant
⦁ A person would be liable for harm caused to another by way of an execution of a sentence of a court as a result of a prosecution or evidence given by the person
⦁ A person is liable for causing harm to another because the other contributed to the harm being caused by trespass, negligence, act or omission
SECTION 82- SPECIAL PROVISION AS TO MEDICAL OR SURGICAL TREATMENT
A person who in good faith, for the purposes of medical or surgical treatment, intentionally causes harm to another person which, in the exercise of reasonable skill and care according to the circumstances of the case, is or ought to have known to be plainly improper, is liable to punishment as if the harm had been caused negligently, within the meaning of this Act, and not otherwise.
SECTION 83- CAUSING HARM BY HINDIRING EXCAPE FROM WRECK
A person who prevents another from escaping and harm results would be liable for the harm