What is Actus Reus in Criminal Law?

With a few exceptions, the majority of crimes will require the prosecution to show that the defendant had both mens rea (the guilty mind) and actus reus (the guilty act). In this week’s blog post, we will be focusing on actus reus, considering what elements need to be present for a successful conviction. The exact things required for the actus reus to be proved will obviously depend on the crime that is being tried. For example, the actus reus of theft is the appropriation of property belonging to another. The prosecution would have to show that all three elements of this were present to successfully prove guilt. However, there are four possible general elements of actus reus, which we will be looking at now.

Conduct

With some crimes, the actus reus is established by the defendant’s conduct, where this conduct is itself criminal. To go back to the example above of theft, the actus reus would simply be the conduct of taking the property belonging to someone else, as this is illegal regardless of the outcome of the conduct. Even if the owner immediately gets their property back without any problems or damage caused, the act of theft has still occurred and this is sufficient for the defendant’s actus reus to be proved. There are also other offences that only require evidence of the defendant’s conduct to show that they had the necessary actus reus, including perjury, making off without payment and possession of a firearm.

Omission

Sometimes, the defendant’s failure to act will also be sufficient to prove the required actus reus of an offence. In the majority of situations, the law will never require someone to act, even if someone else is at serious risk of death or harm and there is little to no risk for the first person if they intervene. For example, if the defendant saw someone drowning and could throw them a buoyancy aid, they are not actually obliged to do so and will not be held legally responsible if the person drowns. However, there are some very limited exceptions to this rule, which we will look at in more detail now.

The first exception is where there is a statutory duty to act, which will result in criminal responsibility if it is not followed. For example, section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states that it is an offence not to stop after a road accident and give your details, if reasonable. This means that simply leaving the scene results in criminal liability, regardless of what actually happened.

Similar to this, the second exception is where there is a contractual duty to act. For example, in R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37, the defendant’s job was to raise and lower the crossing gate on a railway line. They went to lunch, leaving the gate up, which resulted in a crash that killed the train driver. The defendant was found to have the necessary actus reus as they were contractually obliged to operate the gates.

The final exception to the omission rule is where there is a duty imposed by law, which can occur in three different ways. Firstly, if the defendant has created a dangerous situation, they may be held responsible if they fail to put it right. Secondly, if the defendant voluntarily takes on a duty, they may be responsible if they then stray from this duty. Finally, if the defendant holds a public office, misconduct in this might give the necessary actus reus. For example, a police officer may well be obliged to act where a regular citizen would not, meaning that the rule of omission would be ignored and the officer could be found guilty of a criminal offence.

Result

Sometimes, the actus reus can be proved by the result of the defendant’s actions or omissions. Even if the act or omission itself was not illegal, the outcome can still result in criminal proceedings, in a reversal of the conduct section above, where the focus is on the defendant’s actions rather than the result of these actions. For example, simply throwing a rock is not illegal, but it can become illegal if it is aimed at people or property. It is vital that causation is present and proved in all result crimes. There are a lot of offences where actus reus can be proved by the result, such as assault, battery, murder and criminal damage.

State of Affairs

The final way actus reus can be proved is by state of affairs. This is best described as “being” rather than “doing” crimes. For example, being drunk while in charge of a car is sufficient actus reus to prove a crime – there is no need for any particular result. Indeed, it is not even necessary for the defendant to be driving at the time – see Duck v Peacock [1949] 1 All ER 318.

Wrapping Up

There are quite a few different ways that actus reus can be proved in criminal law. Hopefully, this blog post highlights the key distinctions and helps you to understand the different criteria used to establish actus reus. In my next blog post, we will be looking at mens rea, so come back in two weeks for that!

Want help proofreading your work? Contact Carmine Proofreading for a friendly, professional service from a qualified proofreader.

Email: CarmineProofreading@gmail.com

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CarmineProofed