• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which is defined as the 'guilty act' and the mens rea defined as the 'guilty mind'.

Extracts from this document...


Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which is defined as the 'guilty act' and the mens rea defined as the 'guilty mind'. The actus reus must be voluntary and could be one of three things, an act which is the most common form, an omission such as failing to wear a seatbelt or state of affairs which is used in cases of possession and speeding where no mens rea is needed for the defendant to be found guilty. The mens rea could also be one of three things, malice afterthought which centres on intention which is divided into two sections, recklessness which is divided into a lower and higher level and gross negligence which involves a duty of care between the defendant and the victim and a serious breach of that duty. Intention can be direct so that the defendant intended the result of his actions or it could be oblique intention where the defendant is virtually certain that his act would lead to the result required by the crime. In R v. Nedrick (1986) the jury had to decide whether the result of the defendant's actions was a virtual certainty. ...read more.


Chief Superintendent, working police station (1983). The sentence for assault is up to six months in prison and a fine of up to �5000. Assault can be in form of a physical threat where someone may be put in fear when another person approaches them in a violent manner possibly armed with a weapon or an indirect threat such as a telephone call, a text message or even an e-mail, even silent phone calls could be considered as assault. An example of a case where the defendant was failed to be found guilty of assault was in Tuberville v. Savage (1669) where the defendant said 'If it were not assist time I would run you through with my weapon. There was no assault because the victim knew nothing was going to happen to him immediately because of the words spoken by the defendant, assize time was when all the judges visited the town and he would therefore refrain from committing the act. The intention was there but there was no act, the mens rea must exist or be proven for the defendant to be found guilty. ...read more.


To establish this type of manslaughter it had to be proven that the accused had committed the unlawful act, the act was dangerous so even a reasonable man would have recognised it carried some risk of harm, that the act was the substantial cause of death and that the accused intended to commit the act as distinct from intending its consequence. An example of this type of manslaughter is shown in DPP v Newbury & Jones. The boys appealed against there charge of manslaughter but failed as the House of Lords dismissed their appeal on the grounds that the act was objectively dangerous in the eyes of a reasonable man so they knew there was a risk but continued anyway, it was unlawful, and it resulted in death. It was only necessary to prove that the boys had the necessary mens rea for the act which was criminal damage that caused the death but it was not necessary to prove whether the defendant knew that the act was unlawful or dangerous. The mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter is that the defendant need not realise the risk of causing harm, as long as the reasonable man in his position would have realised. The most important element in distinguishing between murder and the various types of manslaughter is the mens rea. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    GBH means "really serious harm". The test for determining this is a subjective test, S.8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 stated that the important thing to look for in cases was what the D actually foresaw and intended, not what the D should have foreseen or intended.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    Edmund Davies J states: "The unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least the risk of some harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm...." This dictum in reference to Lord Atkins widens the rules slightly.

  1. Cases on provocation

    Provocation need not be unlawful in itself, and a baby's crying was undoubtedly "things done". Edwards v R [1973] 1 All ER 152, PC (Hong Kong) A blackmailer A went to V's hotel room in the early hours, after making a series of telephone calls, and pressed V for payment.

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    all Hart required was proof that the defendant had the capacity to appreciate the risk. Stephenson required proof that the defendant actually appreciated the risk. However, in 1981, this settled state of the law was thrown into some confusion by the House of Lords.


    can sue. Possession includes not only physical occupation, but occupation through servants and agents. Mere use, for example by a lodger or licensee (visitor) is not 'possession' in law. Interference: This must be direct interference, either by entering on land, or remaining on the land after permission to stay has ended.

  2. Involuntary Manslaughter

    duty * This caused the death of V MR * Gross negligence is that which a jury considers deserves a criminal conviction. This may be seen as unfair, as in essence it means that two people could do exactly the same thing, yet get different juries, one be convicted and the other not.

  1. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Chemi-Kaze PLC can claim damages. Chemi-Kaze PLC is liable for Flower Power since its negligent act. Flower Power can claim damages. 3.3. Vicarious liability 3.3.1. General vicarious liability Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency ? respondeat superior ? the responsibility of the superior

  2. Tort law assignment. Brian fell against the standard of care a reasonable man would ...

    there is a special relationship between Brian and John, It must be proved that Brian the advisor possessed a special skill relating to the type of advice he gave and must have realise that the John (advisee) would rely on that skill.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work