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'.

Authors Avatar

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. R v. Cunningham (1957) shows an example of subjective recklessness whereby the defendant was aware of the result of his actions would be but still decided to go ahead and take the risk such as assaults.  R v. Caldwell (1982) shows an example of objective recklessness where the defendant creates and takes a risk any reasonable man would see such as criminal damage. To prove gross negligence there simply must be a duty of care between the victim and the defendant. A serious breach which is sufficient to justify criminal liability would find the defendant guilty of gross negligence as shown in R v. Adamako (1994). Transferred malice is when the mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim. This is shown in R v. Mitchell (1983). Both elements, the actus reus and the mens rea must be proven to have happened and together by the prosecution to the satisfaction of the judge, a failure to do this would lead to the defendant being acquitted. However in crimes of strict liability it is not necessary to prove the actus reus, all that needs to be proven is the intention.

Non fatal offences against a person include assault, battery, common assault, Grievous Bodily Harm, GBH with intent, malicious wounding and malicious wounding with intent.

Join now!

Battery is not defined in any statue but is charged under 5.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The actus reus of battery is the application of unlawful force on another. The mens rea of battery is the application of unlawful force or subjective recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied to another. Examples of battery include punching, slapping, kicking pushing, hitting someone with a stick, stone or other missile or it could be an indirect action such as a booby trap which hits the victim. In DPP v. K (1990) a schoolboy set a booby trap in the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay