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

The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea come from the Latin "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea". The meaning of this Latin term translates as "an act is not criminal in the absence of a guilty mind" This one sentence forms the basis for conviction under criminal law, the two key elements being the actus reus (criminal act) and the accompanying mens rea (guilty mind). Arising from this basis for criminal prosecution are the two legal principles of coincidence and causation. Coincidence refers to the temporal coincidence of both the actus reus and the mens rea. Causation goes beyond coincidence and establishes a chain of causation thus stretching out the actus reus and allowing the mens rea to overlap thus facilitating a conviction. In order to show how the law has widened we must first establish and discuss the development of the basic law of coincidence. One of the first important cases on coincidence is Thabo Meli v R. 1. The case concerns a man being taken to a hut and intoxicated. He was hit over the head and the appellants believing him to be dead rolled his body over a cliff where he later died of exposure. The key issue raised here is that there are 2 acts; firstly the assault and secondly the act of rolling the victim over a cliff leading to his death from exposure. ...read more.

Middle

The mens rea was carried on throughout as is seen in the Thabo Meli7 case described as part of the "same transaction" and also in the Church case in which it is described as part of the "same series of acts". Thus it can be seen that when disposing of a supposed corpse the initial mens rea can be continued to cover the eventual actus reus of murder/manslaughter. Finally on the point of coincidence the discussion leads us to the more recent case of R. v Le Brun8. This case involves a man who killed his wife by dropping her on her head accidentally after knocking her out in an argument, it mainly deals with the issue of separate transactions. Lord Lane refers to the learned editors of Smith and Hogan: "......an intervening act by the original actor will not break the chain of causation." Thus it can be said that even though the defendant had no mens rea for dropping his wife on her head, he did have mens rea for the preceding assault was sufficient to continue until such time as a 3rd party interrupted the chain of causation which he created when he assaulted his wife. As the wording of the statement in the question states, the law on causation has changed and widened to allow more defendants. ...read more.

Conclusion

The rules governing causation itself have widened since its beginning. It has evolved from being just a chain of events initiated by one actor to a more flexible form in which more than one actor can be tried for their part in causing or contributing to the chain of causation leading to the commission of an offence as is seen in Empress Car Co. v National Rivers Authority13 In conclusion, it can be seen that the case law on coincidence and causation has developed considerably over the last 50-100 years. Since its beginning in c.1954, causation has added a valuable new facet to coincidence and the way the law looks at the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea. It has also facilitated a greater number of defendants to be tried and brought to justice. The main improvement in the law was arguably established in Fagan v MPC14 as it allowed the court to recognise a continuing state of actus reus and also that mens rea does not necessarily have to be present at the inception of the actus reus. This crucial point along with the other effects implemented by causation show that the general rules have widened in both the cases of coincidence and causation. I would suggest that this widening of the rules has proved beneficial for the judiciary and has allowed a greater freedom to apply the law as it was intended to be applied. ...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)

    He was awarded �43686.13 in damages. Also in the case of Whitehead v British Railways Board, the plaintiff whilst working his job as an assistant railway manager injured his foot and received �2,029.07 in damages after falling awkwardly whilst doing his job.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    Ireland v Gallagher (1963), the defendant decided to kill his wife. He bought a knife and a bottle of whisky which he drank to give himself 'Dutch Courage'. After becoming drunk he killed his wife with the knife. He claimed that he was too drunk to know what he was

  1. Fault Essay

    There is no liability if, as a matter of fact, it is not established that the consequence would not have occurred as and when it did but for the D's conduct. If it would have occurred anyway there is no liability as illustrated in R v White.

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

    The defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm as the victim had been reduced to a mental state which, in itself, amounted to actual bodily harm (the extent of his injuries were disputed). The actus reus in assault occasioning actual bodily harm has two elements: assault (causing the other person to fear immediate unlawful force)

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

    to steal, commit rape, inflict GBH or unlawfully damage the building.coda dar sedadaw orda dak inda foda da. According to Lord Bridge in Moloney [1985], "the general legal opinion is that 'intention' cannot be satisfactorily defined and does not need a definition, since everybody knows what it means"; the analysis ought to be intuitively apparent.

  2. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    If a right to enter on the land is abused this may alter the position of a lawful visitor to that of a trespasser. The general defences of volenti, necessity, inevitable accident, self defence and statutory authority all apply, but mistake is no defence.

  1. I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to ...

    to use them by Everlasting Estates The above can affect the company's liability more than Bob's liability. This is because making hard hats available is not the same as wearing them. Everlasting Estates did not persuade employees to wear hard hats for their safety.

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

    Concerning the detail to legal aspect- Chemi-Kaze PLC has made a breach of occupier?s liability and ordinary negligence because Chemi-Kaze PLC did not exercise any appropriate prevention to ensure the safety on its promises. It just left the container outside the door and didn?t take any action to protect the damaged-containers of chemicals.

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