Law- Strict liability, mens rea actus reus

Explain the concept of “actus reus” and “mens rea” and strict liability. Do you think that there should be strict liability for a crime where there was no prior intention to commit the offence?

“A crime is an unlawful act or default which is an offence against the public and renders the person guilty of the act or default liable to legal punishment.”

In relation to the question…

The essay will be divided into two sections. The first section of the essay will explain the principles of actus reus, mens rea and strict liability.

The second section of this essay will discuss the opinions and criticisms of the law relating to strict liability. In addition, a conclusion on the arguments as to whether strict liability is fair will be reached and suggestion son reform will be made. *elements of a crime.

To find a person guilty of a crime, two elements must be present; actus reus and mens rea.

The legal dictionary definition of actus reus is a ‘guilty act’ which is forbidden by the criminal law. Whereas the English dictionary definition of actus reus is the ‘wrongful act that makes up the physical action of a crime.’

In addition a failure to do something could also be classed as the actus reus of a crime. In legal terms the failure to do something is called an omission. The majority of crimes by omission are normally minor offences such as not wearing a seatbelt or not stopping at a red traffic light, however, some can serious. Crimes by omission are created by an act or statute. This is an established written law. Serious crimes by an omission can involve a situation where a parent stops feeding his or her child. Knowing that the child is unable to feed itself, with no assistance they will die. Therefore this could be the actus reus of either murder or manslaughter.

Furthermore, it is sometimes necessary for a consequence to happen as a result of the defendant’s actions. For example, if the defendant has assaulted a victim occasioning actual bodily harm, he or she must be responsible for committing an assault and that assault must lead to an injury – the consequence is therefore injury.

In most cases it is necessary to show the link between the defendant’s act and the consequence for the accused to be guilty e.g. occasioning actual bodily harm (punch face and the injury is a broken nose- there is a clear link). In some cases, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In most cases it is necessary to show the link between the defendant’s act and the consequence for the accused to be guilty e.g. occasioning actual bodily harm (punch face and the injury is a broken nose- there is a clear link). In some cases, an intervening act can contribute to that consequence (problems arise from here on). This can occur where the victim takes avoiding action which leads to the injury of another person or where another person intervenes. These will be explained in more detail.

The victim takes avoiding action- for example victim jumping into a river to escape an attack and drowns – defendant can be responsible for the death.

Defendant is not guilty is the action taken by the victim was unreasonable or too far removed from original attack for example, three months after an assault the victim suffers from depression and as a result commits suicide.

In the case of R. v. Smith (1959) a soldier got stabbed when a fight broke out in his barracks. The Court of Appeal described his medical treatment as “thoroughly bad”. The Court of Appeal held that the victim’s death was still a result of being stabbed by the defendant so he or she was of murder.

Mens rea literally means guilty mind however the defendant does not need to know what he is doing is a crime. The defendant only used to have the intention required by that specific offence that they are charged with. There are different types of intention. The law states that a defendant must have specific intention for serious crimes. Specific intention is not easily defined. However, in the case of R. v. Mohan (1976) it was held that the reason for the defendant’s act was not important, as long as the defendant made a decision to act which brought about the consequence which lead to a crime specific intention is established.
Strict liability crimes are those where it is not necessary to prove the mens rea, the defendant would be guilty by only doing the actus reus. A case which involved this was Winzar v. Chief constable for (1983). In this situation, a man who was found drunk was taken from hospital outside onto the road and the police charged him with being found drunk on the highway. It was held by the courts that the offence did not need any mens rea therefore the defendant was found guilty for being drunk o the highway. The defendant does not need to know or have the intention about the circumstance/consequences of his actions to be found guilty. An example to support this point would be the case of Strowger v John (1978), where the persons tax disc was not visible in the window of their car. He would therefore be guilty of failing to display his car\ tax disc even though he might not have had the intention. He was guilty just because it was not in the window.

Strict liability offences are taken from Acts of Parliament, however the wording of the Statute is vague. Terms like ‘knowingly’or recklessly maybe used . This suggests that there is some form of intention. Yet strict liability crimes does not require the intention this is ambigious situation .

In the majority of cases the courts analyse the statute in order to decide whether mens rea is needed.

When the courts are deciding whether or not an offence is strict liability, they have to take into consideration certain factors. These factors are based on a modern criteria and were created by Lord Scarman in the case of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Attorney General for Hong Kong (1984) . In the following examples he states he is basically describing various situations where strict liability would apply:

There is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence.
Mens rea is particularly required where the offence is truly criminal – very serious.
Mens rea can only be removed where a statue clearly states that mens rea is not necessary.
The only situation where mens rea can be removed is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern and public safety.
Strict liability is preferred in situations where the aim is to prevent people committing a certain crime