Actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea (an act does not make a person legally liable unless the mind is legally blameworthy). Explain the meaning and importance of this maxim by reference to decided cases.
Criminal Law Written Work (Autumn Term):
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea (an act does not make a person legally liable unless the mind is legally blameworthy).
Explain the meaning and importance of this maxim by reference to decided cases.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea is the maxim that constitutes the basis for defining the two elements that must be proved before a person can be convicted of a crime. This essay will go on to consider what the precise meaning of actus reus and mens rea are, and shall then examine relative cases in which these elements of a crime have been found to be present or absent.
The definition of the word 'Actus reus' under the Oxford Dictionary of Law (New Edition) is:
"[Latin: a guilty act] The essential element of a crime that must be proved to secure a conviction, as opposed to the mental state of the accused. In most cases the actus reus will simply be an act (e.g. appropriation of property is the act of theft) accompanied by specified circumstances (e.g. the property belongs to another). Sometimes, however it may be an omission to act (e.g. failure to prevent death may be the actus reus of manslaughter) or it may include a specified consequence (death resulting within a year being the consequence required for the actus reus of murder or manslaughter). In certain cases the actus reus may simply be a state of affairs rather than an act (e.g. being unfit to drive through drink or drugs when in charge of a motor-vehicle on a road)".
In order to complete the equation of a crime, a 'mens rea' has to be established. This is the mental element necessary for an offence as opposed the actual conduct or state of affairs which a particular offence prohibits (actus reus). 'Mens rea' is defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Law as follows:
"[Latin: a guilty mind] The state of mind that the prosecution must prove a defendant to have had at the time of committing a crime in order to secure a conviction".
Furthermore with reference to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, a mens rea can either be defined in the crime creating the statute or can be established by precedent. Examples of mens rea include that of intention to bring about a particular consequence, recklessness as to whether such consequences, and in a few circumstances negligence. Knowledge about certain situations in some crimes is sometimes necessary as part ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
"[Latin: a guilty mind] The state of mind that the prosecution must prove a defendant to have had at the time of committing a crime in order to secure a conviction".
Furthermore with reference to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, a mens rea can either be defined in the crime creating the statute or can be established by precedent. Examples of mens rea include that of intention to bring about a particular consequence, recklessness as to whether such consequences, and in a few circumstances negligence. Knowledge about certain situations in some crimes is sometimes necessary as part of its mens rea (e.g. the crime of dealing with stolen goods requires the knowledge that the goods were stolen). Conversely, some crimes require no mens rea. Such crimes are referred to as strict liability cases and are usually of a minor and regulatory nature. Strict liability cases are of statutory creation and proof by the prosecution of mens rea is not required in respect of at least one element of the actus reus. Examples of such cases shall be illustrated later in this essay.
Whenever mens rea is required, it is for the prosecution to prove that it existed at the same time as the actus reus of the crime (coincidence of actus reus and mens rea). A defendant is unable to plead ignorance of the law, neither are they allowed to use the issue of good motive as a defence. Alternatively, the defendant could produce evidence to demonstrate that he had no mens rea for the offence he is charged with, or another method would be to admit that he had mens rea, but raise a general defence (e.g. duress) or a particular defence allowed in relation to the crime.
The criminal law does not seek to convict people for their evil thoughts or intentions. Therefore, if D has the mens rea for an offence but does not fulfil the actus reus of bringing about his thought, then he is not guilty of committing that offence. This situation where the mens rea was evident but there was no actus reus is demonstrated in the case of Deller (1952) 36 Cr App R 184. Here, P was selling a car to D and accepted D's car in part exchange after D represented to him that it was 'free from all encumbrances'. D believed this representation to be untrue as he had previously executed a document with a finance company which purported to be a hire purchase agreement in respect of the car. If this agreement was valid the car was not free from encumbrances and D had lied to P. If the agreement turned out to be a loan on the security of the car it was void as it had not been registered under the Bills of Sale Act 1878 and thus D's representation would, in fact, be true. D was charged with, and convicted of, obtaining P's car by false pretences contrary to s. 32 of the Larceny Act 1916. Because the jury discovered the agreement was a loan on the security of the car, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed D's conviction as this agreement was void and thus the car was unencumbered. D quite obviously intended to make false representations but the representations he made were true. The correct charge for an offence with the same facts as in this case would be attempting to obtain property by deception.
It is possible to be guilty of an offence if the actus reus exists but the mens rea for the same offence does not. This is illustrated in the case of R. v. Larsonneur (1933) 97 J.P. 206. The defendant, who was French, arrived in the United Kingdom with a French passport. This included conditions which prevented her employment here. On March 22 these conditions were changed requiring her to leave the United Kingdom that day. The defendant then moved to the Irish Free State, however, the Irish authorities ordered her deportation and she was transferred to Holyhead in the custody of the Irish police where she was then handed over to the English police. The defendant was charged that "she being an alien to whom leave to land in the United Kingdom has been refused, was found in the United Kingdom... ." She was convicted at London Sessions and appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld her conviction, Hewart CJ referring to the circumstances of compulsion which brought about her return to the United Kingdom as 'perfectly immaterial'. The Court was not interested to discover whether L had caused that state of affairs.
Furthermore, in the case of Winzar v. Chief Constable of Kent, The Times, 28 March 1983, the Court came to a similar judgement as in the case above. Once again, the actus reus of the crime was sufficient to convict without consideration of the mens rea of the same offence. In this case W had been brought to hospital on a stretcher. He was diagnosed as being merely drunk and was later asked to leave. Later that evening Winzar was found slumped on a seat in the corridor and the police were summoned. They took him out into the road, observed that he was drunk and placed him in their police car. W was charged with being found drunk on the highway contrary to s. 12 of the Licensing Act 1972. The Divisional Court interpreted the words 'found drunk' to mean 'perceived to be drunk' and upheld his conviction. All that mattered to the Court was that he was found drunk on a public highway; how he came to be there was considered irrelevant.
An unusual circumstance is where the given offence has no actus reus or mens rea present, and yet still a conviction can be made. This is highlighted in the case of Shaw v. DPP [1962] AC 220. The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals as a result of a 'Ladies Directory' that he had published which advertised the names and addresses of prostitutes, alongside their photographs and details of the 'services' they were prepared to offer. The House of Lords upheld his conviction without deciding whether corrupting public morals was a substantive offence although the Court of Criminal Appeal had held that it was. In Shaw v. DPP there was no actus reus for the offence at the time the Ladies Directory was written, and hence there was no mens rea either. It was only when the case went before the House of Lords that a new piece of legislation banning such publications was introduced on the basis of this case. This decision by the House of Laws was widely scrutinised and would never be allowed in similar circumstances today.
It has been demonstrated that not all crimes have an obvious actus reus or mens rea in which they can be decided. Normally, a person can never be convicted if they have the necessary mens rea for a crime, but no actus reus in which to conduct the offence. Merely thinking about committing an offence is not enough. Disputes may arise when the actus reus of an offence is certain, however, the defendant claims that it was not their intention to carry out the act and it happened as a result of a mistake or by acting negligently or recklessly etc. This is also the case in state of affair offences such as those under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Here, the accused takes full responsibility for his actions when in control of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, despite the fact that he may have been in an unfit state.
By Lene Male.
