The current difficulties surrounding omissions is the actus reus of a crime are unavoidable but need to be resolved if the modern law is be to fair. The view that ‘The current difficulties surrounding omissions is the actus reus of a crime are unavoidable but need to be resolved if the modern law is to be fair’ is very accurate as the law is outdated and they are difficulties surrounding omissions, reforms are needed.
Actus reus is the physical element of a crime .It can be the physical element of a crime. It can be an act or a failure to act (an omission) or a state of affairs. In most cases the actus reus will be something the defendant does, but there are situations in which failure to act is sufficient for the actus reus. These are set out at section 2.2 ‘ state of affairs’ cases are very rare.
Voluntary nature of actus reus , The act or omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant, if the defendant has no control over his actions the n he has not committed the actus reus. InHill v B axtor 19 the court gave examples of where a driver of a vehicle could not be said to be to doing the act of driving voluntarily. These included where a driver lost control of his vehicle because he was stung a swarm of bees, or if he was struck on the head by a stone or had a heart attack while driving. Other examples of an involuntary act include where the defendant hits another person because of a reflex action or a muscle spasm. If another is where one person pushes a second person, causing them to harm into third person. In this situation the act of second person who has been pushed is involuntary. Even though has hit the third person, he has not committed the actus reus for any assault offence. This happened in the case of Mitchell 1983 ( see section 8.1.3) of course, the original ‘pusher’ can be liable. Omissions as actus reus , the normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. This was explained by Stephen j, a 19th- century...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document