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

Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which is defined as the 'guilty act' and the mens rea defined as the 'guilty mind'.

Extracts from this document...


Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which is defined as the 'guilty act' and the mens rea defined as the 'guilty mind'. The actus reus must be voluntary and could be one of three things, an act which is the most common form, an omission such as failing to wear a seatbelt or state of affairs which is used in cases of possession and speeding where no mens rea is needed for the defendant to be found guilty. The mens rea could also be one of three things, malice afterthought which centres on intention which is divided into two sections, recklessness which is divided into a lower and higher level and gross negligence which involves a duty of care between the defendant and the victim and a serious breach of that duty. Intention can be direct so that the defendant intended the result of his actions or it could be oblique intention where the defendant is virtually certain that his act would lead to the result required by the crime. In R v. Nedrick (1986) the jury had to decide whether the result of the defendant's actions was a virtual certainty. ...read more.


Chief Superintendent, working police station (1983). The sentence for assault is up to six months in prison and a fine of up to �5000. Assault can be in form of a physical threat where someone may be put in fear when another person approaches them in a violent manner possibly armed with a weapon or an indirect threat such as a telephone call, a text message or even an e-mail, even silent phone calls could be considered as assault. An example of a case where the defendant was failed to be found guilty of assault was in Tuberville v. Savage (1669) where the defendant said 'If it were not assist time I would run you through with my weapon. There was no assault because the victim knew nothing was going to happen to him immediately because of the words spoken by the defendant, assize time was when all the judges visited the town and he would therefore refrain from committing the act. The intention was there but there was no act, the mens rea must exist or be proven for the defendant to be found guilty. ...read more.


To establish this type of manslaughter it had to be proven that the accused had committed the unlawful act, the act was dangerous so even a reasonable man would have recognised it carried some risk of harm, that the act was the substantial cause of death and that the accused intended to commit the act as distinct from intending its consequence. An example of this type of manslaughter is shown in DPP v Newbury & Jones. The boys appealed against there charge of manslaughter but failed as the House of Lords dismissed their appeal on the grounds that the act was objectively dangerous in the eyes of a reasonable man so they knew there was a risk but continued anyway, it was unlawful, and it resulted in death. It was only necessary to prove that the boys had the necessary mens rea for the act which was criminal damage that caused the death but it was not necessary to prove whether the defendant knew that the act was unlawful or dangerous. The mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter is that the defendant need not realise the risk of causing harm, as long as the reasonable man in his position would have realised. The most important element in distinguishing between murder and the various types of manslaughter is the mens rea. ...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)

    Goodward owed Wattleworth a duty of care but he was not in breach of it as causation was not proved. There can be several defences used in these circumstances the first being volenti. In Woolridge v Sumner it states that this defence does not normally apply to cases of spectators

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

    "A court or jury... shall not be bound to infer that he intended or foresaw a result... by reason only of its being the natural or probable consequence... but... shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence..."

  1. British Law in Health and Social Care

    (Jokinen, 2009) A precedence of common law is set down by Lord Atkins through the Donoghue vs. Stevenson is duty of care. Duty of Care In English law an individual is owed a duty of care by another, to ensure that they do not suffer unreasonable harm or loss.

  2. Law- Negligence

    Hill Samuel Bank [1991], where the defendant was held liable since the claimant had satisfied all three aspects of the test. The courts have also developed the principles from the Hedley Byrne case in Smith v Eric S Bush [1989].

  1. How do you feel the victims of abuse and violence who kill should be ...

    Kiranjit wanted to become a lawyer, but she had an arranged marriage to Deepak Ahluwalia of London, England, who lived with his mom. She had hoped to continue her education, but was prevented by Deepak, who became increasingly alcoholic, and abusive - both physically and verbally, even s******y molesting her, and having multiple relationships with other females.

  2. Cases on provocation

    Dismissing D's appeal, the Court of Appeal said that in ascribing to the reasonable man the characteristics of the defendant, only those characteristics which were reasonably permanent were to be considered, and any special characteristics were to be taken into account only where they related directly to the provocation.

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

    Chemicals from the containers then seep out, escape into the next unit, Flower Power, a garden centre killing many of Flower Power?s stock of plants. The problem: a fire which was caused in Bright Light PLC caused damage to Chemi-Kaze.

  2. Tort law assignment. Brian fell against the standard of care a reasonable man would ...

    would rely on that skill. In Mutual Life and Citizens Assurance v Evatt 1971 it was held that there would only be a duty of care if the party giving advice held himself out as being in the business of giving the advice in question.

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