In order to be liable for most criminal offences it is necessary for the defendant to have committed the actus reus; the wrongful act, whilst having the necessary mens rea; the guilty intention. Both are explained within the common law or by an act of parliament. For example in the Theft Act 1968 the actus reus is described as “the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another”. The actus reus will usually be a positive act and must be legally defined as being wrong. In order to convict a person of murder it is necessary to show that the act of the defendant was the substantial cause of the crime and the prosecution must prove that the defendant caused the victims death.

 Upon hearing the case the courts must decide whether the defendant was a factual cause of the victim’s death. This test is known as the sin qua non or the “but-for” test. The court must ask themselves would the victim still have lived but-for the act of the accused. The defendant will not become liable for the death if the victim would have died at the same time regardless. The case of white applies this test; the accused put cyanide into his mothers drink intending to kill her. She died from a heart attack which happened before the poison had taken affect, he was not liable for murder.

The courts must then ask whether the defendant was the legal cause of the victims death; causation in law. The conduct of the defendant may not be the sole cause of the death but be deemed a substantial and operating cause. The courts may view this question as one of morality, for example can the death be rightly blamed upon the accused? In the case of Pagett the accused was trying to escape armed police and used his girlfriend as a shield as he fired at them, the police returned fire killing the woman. He was held liable for manslaughter as he was the main cause of her death, causation was not removed. In the case of Marchent v Muntz however causation was removed under causation in law. The accused was driving his tractor when he collided with a cyclist who was driving at high speed. On appeal causing death by dangerous driving was quashed as the driver of the bike would have been killed regardless of whether the tractor would have been guarded.

Join now!

The act of the defendant must be substantially accelerate the death if the victim. The actus reus of the defendant must be more than a minimal cause of death. In the case of Benge the accused was in charge of a gang of railway workers and he ordered them to pull up some track failing to notice a train was due. On realising this he sent two men down the tack to warn the train driver, they failed to go far enough, the train was de-railed and several passengers killed. He was liable for their manslaughter and causation was not ...

This is a preview of the whole essay