Actus Reus: Voluntary Acts and Omissions in Criminal Liability

Actus Reus: Voluntary Acts and Omissions in Criminal Liability

The principle of actus reus in criminal law states that a crime must be the result of a voluntary act. This means that individuals can only be held criminally liable for their actions, not for mere thoughts or involuntary behaviors. However, there are certain types of acts that may be included or omitted from being considered a criminal act. This essay will explore the types of acts that fall under actus reus and those that do not, as well as provide a real-life case to illustrate these concepts.

Types of Acts Included in Actus Reus

1. Voluntary Physical Acts: These are intentional physical actions taken by an individual that result in the commission of a crime. For example, if a person physically assaults another individual, their voluntary act of striking or injuring the victim would fall under actus reus.
2. Possession: In some cases, simply possessing certain items or substances can be considered a criminal act. For instance, if an individual is found in possession of illegal drugs with the intent to distribute, their act of possessing the drugs can be considered part of actus reus.
3. Failure to Act: While the general rule is that criminal liability requires a voluntary act, there are exceptions where a failure to act can constitute a criminal act. These exceptions typically involve situations where there is a legal duty to act, such as when there is a special relationship between the parties (e.g., parent-child) or when there is a contractual duty to act. For example, if a parent fails to provide necessary medical care to their child and the child suffers harm as a result, the parent’s omission to act could be considered part of actus reus.

Types of Acts Omitted from Actus Reus

1. Involuntary Acts: Acts that are not under an individual’s control, such as reflexive or unconscious actions, are generally excluded from actus reus. For example, if a person suffers a seizure and unintentionally strikes someone during the seizure, their involuntary act would not be considered a criminal act.
2. Mental States: Pure thoughts or intentions without accompanying physical actions do not fall under actus reus. The law does not punish individuals based solely on their thoughts or desires; there must be some external manifestation of those thoughts in the form of a voluntary act.

Real-Life Case: R v. Stone and Dobinson (1977)

One notable case that illustrates the concepts of actus reus and omissions is R v. Stone and Dobinson (1977) in England. In this case, the defendants, an elderly couple, were charged with manslaughter by gross negligence after the death of Fanny, Stone’s sister. Fanny was mentally ill and required constant care. The defendants took her into their home but failed to provide her with adequate care, leading to her deterioration and eventual death. The court held that the defendants’ omission to provide necessary care amounted to a breach of their duty of care and was therefore part of actus reus. This case highlights how a failure to act in situations where there is a duty of care can be considered as part of actus reus. It demonstrates that criminal liability can extend beyond voluntary physical acts and encompass omissions when there is a legal duty to act.

Conclusion

Actus reus is a fundamental principle in criminal law that requires a voluntary act as a necessary element for criminal liability. While voluntary physical acts and acts of possession can be included within actus reus, involuntary acts and mere thoughts or intentions are excluded. However, there are exceptions in cases of omissions when there is a legal duty to act. The case of R v. Stone and Dobinson serves as an example of how a failure to fulfill a duty of care can be considered part of actus reus. Understanding the scope and limitations of actus reus is crucial in determining criminal liability and ensuring justice in the legal system. References: Stone, R. & Dobinson, D. (1977). R v. Stone and Dobinson. Criminal Law Review, 623-625.

Sample Answer