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

Criminal liability is generally based on fault with the prosecution having to prove both actus reus and mens rea. Some criminal offences are crimes of strict liability. Briefly explain the meaning of these 3 terms.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Criminal liability is generally based on fault with the prosecution having to prove both actus reus and mens rea. Some criminal offences are crimes of strict liability. Briefly explain the meaning of these 3 terms. The actus reus is the physical element of a crime. The phrase itself is loosely translated as `the guilty act'. The actus reus however does not always have to be some one committing an act it could also be the failure to act (an omission). The actus reus of a crime may also be committed when a prohibited state of affairs exists. In some crimes it is also necessary to show more than an act or failure to act. What you also need to show is that specific consequences of an act occurred before the actus reus is proven. An example of the actus for a state of affairs which is when a defendant may commit the actus reus simply by being in a particular place when this state of affairs has been declared to be wrong - Larsonnneur (1993) and Winzar v Chief constable of Kent (1983) ...read more.

Middle

Where there is a duty to act under a contract - R v Pittwood (1902) 2. Where a duty exists because there is a special relationship between the parties - R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 3. Where a duty exists because the defendant has voluntarily accepted responsibility for another - R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) 4. Where the defendant has caused a dangerous situation and he has failed to put it right - R v Miller (1983) 5. Where a duty exists because of a persons public office - R v Dytham (1979) However in the case of a doctor if he failed to give medical treatment if the discontinuance of the treatment is in the patients best interest he will not have committed the actus reus. The mens rea is the mental element of a crime and if it is literally translated then it means guilty mind. The mens rea has got nothing to do with motive. Each crime will have an individual mens rea. In statutory offences the mens rea is often defined by words such as maliciously, intentionally, recklessly and wilfully. ...read more.

Conclusion

However R v G (2003) the house of lords decided that Cunningham recklessness will be used for all criminal offences. Gross negligence is the necessary mens rea for manslaughter as used in the case of R v Adomako. Strict liability is when a crime can be committed and then some one can be convicted without proof of mens rea. An example of this is Larsonneur (1933) where the defendant had no mens rea when committing the offence of `being an alien to whom leave to land in the UK had been refused.' She did not mean to commit this offence but had been brought to the UK against her will. Strict liability offences are in place to protect something or some one. Some examples of these are to protect the public from unfit food or protect children from buying teenagers and been taken in by gambling. They are used for thing such as the regulation of road traffic. It is left to the courts to decide if an offence is one of strict liability. To decide if a case is one of strict liability it must be decided if the case is truly criminal or regulatory and if it is then regulatory this then means it is strict liability. ...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

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    Next indirect sex discrimination which is more subtle and includes cases such as R v Sec of State for Employment Ex p Equal Opportunities' commission : the rule which appeared equal was that all who were part-time were treated differently to full-time, considering most women are part time due to child care this was discrimination mainly towards women.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    In a sports match there is a duty owed to make sure no one is injured. There are several sporting cases involving negligence. Where someone is injured in the course of a game a claim will lie if it is reasonable to say that the acts would be reasonable foreseeable,

  1. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    In fact prohibited drugs were found. The House of Lords upheld his conviction. Another explanation of why strict liability is favourable is that People are discouraged from holding unlawful weapons. Howells 1977 the defendants conviction for failing to obtain a firearm certificate was upheld, despite the fact that he believed his gun was an antique one and therefore didn't need a certificate.

  2. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    Also, in R v Mitchell, the defendant pushed a man in a queue, who in turn fell against another, who in turn fell against an elderly lady who had to have an operation from which she died. The Court of Appeal ruled that transferred malice applied to unlawful act manslaughter.

  1. Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate ...

    The defendant must possess the actus reus and mens rea of the crime they committed. The actus reus must be voluntary and the mens rea is generally required. With regards to the actus reus, the defendant must be in control of her/his actions.

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    Where a defendant accused of assault seeks to show that he was drunk and had no intention, he cannot adduce evidence of drunkenness. If recklessness is a variety of subjective foresight, then under Majewski the defendant should be acquitted, as the intoxication raised a doubt as to whether the accused foresaw any risk to life.

  1. Non-fatal Offences Against the Person.

    Occasioning means causing the assault through either intention or subjective recklessness. (R V PARMENTER: SAVAGE). The assault in this case for Chris was battery, the actus reus was proved because there was physical harm to the skin and there was also mens rea for assault because she intended to cause

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

    The Chancery Division considers complex matters such as disputes about wills, trusts, bankruptcy, land law, intellectual property and corporate laws, and the Queen's Bench Division deals with other business matters including contracts, torts or land disputes. The Queen's Bench Division has some specialist sub-divisions, including a Commercial Court, which deals with large and complex business disputes.

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