• 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

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

    4 star(s)

    If a participator acts outside the rules then they are likely to be liable for a damages claim for a personal injury. Just as if on a night out you were assaulted by a passer by the passer by would be liable for injuries caused.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    This had been illustrated in the cases of Yip Chiu-Cheung v R11 and R v Latif12 where the Nedrick/Woollin test for oblique intention would not make allowances for those whose 'motive for pursuing their primary purpose is morally inconsistent with the mens rea for the offence'13 An example given by

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    Fagan's actus reus was driving onto the police constable's foot which initially was accidental and without mens rea thus there is no crime. However, at the point which Fagan realised the situation and that the actus reus had occurred he demonstrated evidence of mens rea by telling the policeman "Fuck you, you can wait!"

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

    Foucault oppressed ace_16k's structuration theory. Precedent and reason might have been on the side of the dissentients but the House of Lords in R. v. Lawrence (1982) A.C. 510, where the accused was charged with causing death by dangerous driving contrary to s.1 Road Traffic Act 1972 upheld the Caldwell test of recklessness.

  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. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    The distinction between basic and specific intention is most peculiar - suffice it to say that in offences against the person, murder and GBH are crimes of specific intent whereas most other forms of assault are crimes of basic intent.

  1. Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which ...

    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

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

    If the victim cannot prove that the person acted wrongfully was the cause the loss, he will not be entitled to any compensation, despite his own innocence. Causation has two prongs. First, a tort must be the cause in fact of a particular injury, which means that a specific act must actually have resulted in injury to another.

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