# data[].attributes.body
A continuing act is when the defendant starts a physical act and then it continues while the mens rea continues to develop

A case which highlights this is , Fagan v metropolitan PC

Fagan accidentally drove onto a police officers foot which in itself would be an accident

However the continuing act happened when Fagan then failed to comply with the officer and drive off of his foot, which then made him guilty as he developed the mens rea

# data[].attributes.body
Omission is very simply the failure to carry out a necessary act. Such as not stopping the spreading of fire or protecting someone from known threats if duty of care is found liable. This can lead to the actus reus being constituted.

A case example of this is Fagon v Metropolitan police commissioner (1969). Fagon was parked distanced from a curb and was asked to move it close to the curb by a police officer. He obliged and reversed his car however, in doing so he reversed onto the foot of the officer. When asked to move the car again Fagon said no and turned off the engine, leaving the car on the foot of the police officer. This is viewed as omission as the failure to act in moving the car of his foot made him liable for his sentence and his appeal against the case being rejected.

# data[].attributes.body
1. One of the main strengths of the actus reus is that if it is established early on in a case then it is likely it will be a deciding factor for the result of the case. This is good as it means that the case will be decided and concluded much quicker.

2. This is typically one of the foundations of a criminal case, alongside the mens rea. This is good as it means that in a criminal case it plays a very big role and is a constant factor until the final outcome.

3. One strength that is heavily under looked is that if looked at correctly the actus reaus can help greatly to prevent the criminilisation of morally innocent people. This helps to stop people being labelled as a criminal, and then potentially stopping people from turning to a life of crime.

# data[].attributes.body
Result crimes are crimes where a specific consequence must occur as a direct outcome of the defendants actions for liability to arise. This is where the act alone is not enough, it must cause a particular result. For a result crime, the actus reus includes three elements:

1) conduct: the defendant must perform a certain act or sometimes an omission.

2) consequence (result): A specific outcome must occur (e.g death)

3) causation: can be factual or legal

Examples of result crimes:

Murder: actus reus= unlawful killing by act. result required= death of a person.

manslaughter: actus reus= unlawful act. Result required= death

To establish actus reus in a result crime, the prosecution must prove:

1) an act or ommission.

2) the act caused a specific result.

3) a legally sufficient causal link between the act and the result.

The actus reus of these offences is distinguished by the fact that the accused’s conduct must produce a particular result- the most obvious being murder, where the accused’s act or ommission must cause the death of a person.

R v Pagett

# data[].attributes.body
The actus reus here is simply an act or an omission, the consequences of that act or omission being immaterial. For example, perjury is committed whenever someone makes a statement which they do not believe to be true while on oath. Whether or not that statement makes a difference to the trial is not important to whether the offence or perjury has been committed.

Examples of action crimes:

Assault, murder, rape, arson. (These offences require a physical act.

In murder, the actus reus is the unlawful killing of a human being.

in theft, it is the taking or appropriation lf someone else’s property.

# data[].attributes.body
These crimes neglect the actus reus entirely as instead of focusing on someone committing an illegal act it focuses on the event that the defendant was found in, and at what time. For example, being found drunk driving on the road.

This is seen in the case of R v Miller (1982). In this case the defendant fell asleep with a lit cigarette in his hand which caused a fire to start. He woke to see the fire however he simply ignored it and went to sleep in a separate room. The fire resulted in causing £800 worth of damage to the building. The House of Lords deemed that he was liable for the damage as once he woke up he had a duty to attempt to limit the fire however he failed to commit to this duty by ignoring it and falling back to sleep.