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

Criminal offences are usually defined in terms of a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind(mens rea). Explain, using examples, how the law deals with (i) criminal omissions; (ii) strict liability.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

(a) Criminal offences are usually defined in terms of a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind(mens rea). Explain, using examples, how the law deals with (i) criminal omissions; (ii) strict liability. (15 marks) To be guilty of a criminal offence you must be is possession of both actus reus and mens rea. In some cases however a person may be liable to failing to act this is known as an omission. Some Acts of Parliament create an offence of omission. For example failing to report a road traffic accident. For common law crimes an omission will only be liable for actus reus if they are under a duty to act. These duties include: * Relationship- e.g. parent/child relationship. Where parents have a duty to care for their child. R v Gibbons and Proctor 1918 where a father and his common law wife were guilty of murder when they starved their child to death. * Contract - if the person is under a contractual obligation. E.g. R v Pittwood 1902. * A duty arising from the accused's conduct- for example in R v Miller 1983 Miller accidentally started a fire in a squat but did nothing to stop the fire from spreading. * A duty arising form an official position- for example Police officers and some other are under a duty to protect the public. ...read more.

Middle

ii.)To be guilty of criminal offence this requires both of actus Reus and mens rea. However in some offences only actus Reus is required, these are known as strict liability offences. Illegal parking is an example of a strict liability offence. It can be that a person who parks on double yellow lines did not realise they have done so and so did not possess the mens rea. Recklessness does not need to be shown to convict someone of a strict liability offence. Other examples include trading standards, food safety and the sale of tobacco or lottery tickets to under age children. Statues do not always specify whether or not mens rea is required for a particular offence. However there are two general questions 'do the words used in the Act imply strict liability?' and 'is the offence really criminal or merely regulatory?' Do the words used in the Act imply strict liability? In the case of Gammon ltd v Attorney general of Hong Kong 1985 it was stated that even if an offence did not specify strict liability the words used might nether less indicate this. Criminal or regulatory it is well established that the courts should start from the presumption that all criminal offences require mens rea. However Lord Scarman stated that a distinction should be made between offences that are 'truly criminal;' and those that are concerned with an issue of 'social concern.' ...read more.

Conclusion

In some cases however it can be difficult to accept that the defendants' mens rea was anything other than intention. An example is Moloney 1985. A solider was having a competition with his father to load a shot gun. Moloney won and his father said go on then shoot it and he shot it at him, instantly killing him. Moloney then said. 'I never conceived that what I was doing might cause injury to anybody. It was just a lark.' However some may say that instinctively he must have known that that would happen to his father.' Willow Mentos AS Law Andrew Proctor Word Count: 1, 436 Reg believed that Jack had given a statement about him to the police. He was furious about this and went to Jack's house. Jack was asleep in a chair in the garden. Reg went up to Jack, knocked him unconscious with a cosh and then cut out his tongue. (a) Criminal offences are usually defined in terms of a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind(mens rea). Explain, using examples, how the law deals with (i) criminal omissions; (ii) strict liability. (15 marks) (b) Taking into account both actus reus and mens rea, discuss Reg's criminal liability for the attack on Jack. (10 marks) Please include an essay plan at the start of your answer, as these can be used to give you marks in an exam if you don't manage to finish your answer. It's just good practice, people! ...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 Criminal Law 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 Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act ...

    4 star(s)

    to act, But as they are getting paid to do a job they should be trusted to fulfil their duty and therefore be liable for their mistakes. The second category of omission is duty of care under a professional duty to act.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Is the current law on the non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory?

    4 star(s)

    A higher level of mens rea would be necessary than for the current legislation, where the defendant need only foresee some harm in order to be convicted of GBH (Mowatt), and he need not foresee the consequences required for the actus reus of the offence of ABH (Roberts).

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Briefly explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability as a criminal offence

    3 star(s)

    The fourth presumption being that only when the statute involves social concern, this is the only time it can be displaced. Lastly, the fifth presumption being that the mens rea will stand unless it can be shown that by having it

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in ...

    3 star(s)

    step-brothers and step-sisters and did not feed her so that she starved to death. The court ruled that not only did Gibbons and Proctor have legal responsibility to care for the young girl but their deliberate negligence and inhumane conduct of which caused the girl's death resulted in them being guilty of manslaughter.

  1. Non-Fatal Offences - Notes and Evaluation.

    would define the word as meaning specific intention or subjective recklessness (Parmenter 1991). Some words and phrases do not describe what they mean, for example, in ABH 'actual' suggests any harm whereas, in fact, it does not include serious harm.

  2. Law - Unit 3 - Mock Exam Question

    As a result of her refusal to accept a blood transfusion, the victim died of her wounds. The court of Appeal rejected the defendant's argument that her refusal broke the chain of causation, on the ground that the accused had to take the victim as he found her.

  1. List and explain the six most important cases for the law on insanity, explaining ...

    Whilst the case of Quick may have been decided wrongly, the decision confirmed that people who suffered from a defect of reason caused by an external factor, should be allowed to use the defence of automatism. The precedent made by this decision meant that other cases such as T (1990), could use the defence of automatism, rather than insanity.

  2. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    If the answer is yes as in R v White where but for putting cyanide in his mums drink would she have died then the D is not liable (she died of an unrelated cause). If the answer is no as in R v Pagett then the D is the cause.

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