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

Explain in detail what actus reus and the chain of causation actually means.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain in detail what actus reus and the chain of causation actually means. The term actus reus is Latin for 'the guilty act'. It is essential in criminal law, as actus reus must be there for their to be a criminal offence. It can mean a guilty act or an omission to act. In the crime of murder, then the actus reus would be the killing of a human being. The act must be voluntary for the defendant to be guilty. For example, if the defendant acts out of reflex because of another force, it is not voluntary and the defendant cannot be found guilty. A good example can be found in the case of Hill v Baxter (1958) where a driver is being chased by a swarm of bees and driving a car in these conditions would be extremely hard so could not be held guilty for his actions. If the defendant is to be found guilty of an offence then it is important to prove that the defendant caused the offence in the first place. ...read more.

Middle

He was found guilty of manslaughter as the result would not have happened 'but for' the actions of the defendant. To break the chain of causation it would take actions of a third party intervening, the victim's own contribution to the events or a natural and unforeseen event such as an earthquake. It is no excuse if the victim has a medical condition to that means that they are more susceptible to injuries. It is unlucky on the attacker but the actus reus is still there. Te defendant should 'take the victim as they find them' and this is known as the 'thin skull rule.' Explain in detail what is meant by the term mens rea. Discuss the different types of mens rea a defendant might have. Mens rea is Latin for 'the guilty mind.' For a defendant to be found guilty of a crime, it must be proven that the defendant had the guilty mind to commit the actus reus. The defendant can only be found guilty of a crime, when both the actus reus and the mens rea are present. ...read more.

Conclusion

An example of this is the R V Latimer (1886) case where Latimer attempted to strike his intended victim but missed and hit a woman nearby. She was seriously injured and he was held liable for the injury caused. The mens rea was transferred from his intended victim to his actual victim. Another type of mens rea is recklessness. It is the lower level of mens rea and is the taking of an unjustifiable risk. It is broken down into subjective recklessness and objective recklessness. Subjective recklessness is the taking of an unjustifiable risk when the defendant realises that there is a risk but still carries out the action. An example of this is the R V Cunningham 1957 case, where the defendant tore off a gas meter from his cellar wall to steal the money inside it. The gas leaked and drifted up through the next house and injured a woman. The defendant did nothing to stop the as leak. He was being reckless and realising that a possibility of harm may result. Objective recklessness is where an unjustifiable risk is taken but the defendant does not realise that there is a risk, but an ordinary reasonable man would recognise the risk. Law Essay Law Lee Kirby ...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

    "The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and ...

    4 star(s)

    a jury can infer the necessary intention if they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention)

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    In the Journal International Law Review an article titled 'Who would be a referee?' examines the Court of Appeal decision in Vowles and the issues raised as to the duty of care and how the training of referees may now differ.

  1. Fault Essay

    foresee the consequence and also it's not clear as to when this would move to the 'daft and unexpected' which according to Roberts would remove fault on the part of D.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    falls after the blow and cracks his head on the pavement and dies. A has the mens rea for harm and thus manslaughter can be considered. Another important case which shows the development of the law of coincidence is that of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Constabulary4.

  1. Using actual situations, describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal ...

    It can be seen then that Mr. Chan-Fook had both the actus reus and mens rea of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and he was convicted, however the case was quashed on appeal, as there was no evidence of psychiatric injury.

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    feYU Visit coursework db in db fo db for db more dissertation db Do db not db redistribute feYU It may be useful to identify one of the principles for which the phrase mens rea is used. It is an expositional tool, when used in sentences such as 'thecocg cgr secgcgw orcg cgk incg focg cg.

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    Well, the House of Lords decided that in these circumstances, an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm on the mother cannot amount to murder of the child, although it could amount to manslaughter. It may however still be the case that there could be liability for the murder of the

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

    put themselves at risk as a result of committing a heroic act?. Therefore, Sam?s employer is not liable for his injury concerning to his health and safety. Conclusion: Anthony and Maria are liable for the injury of Sam and the death of Hugh.

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