Definitions of Actus reus, mens rea & strict liability
Definitions of: Actus Reus \
Mens Rea \ Strict Liability:
Actus Reus
Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime (guilty act), in criminal cases the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an Actus Reus and had the Mens Rea (guilty mind) at the same time.
An Actus Reus consist more than just a crime, it also has of whatever circumstances and consequences are required for the offence in question.
The crimes can be divided into two categories:
The first category is the conduct crime where the Actus Reus is the prohibited act itself, for example the Actus Reus of the offence dangerous driving is ''driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public places (S2 RTA 1988), no harm or consequence of that dangerous driving needs to be established. Another example is blackmailing.
The second category is the result crimes, those are where Actus Reus is defined in terms of prohibited consequences, irrespective of these are brought about, for example causing death (murder) or the Actus Reus of the offence of criminal damage is that property belonging to another must be destroyed or damaged (S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971).
Conduct and result crimes are those in which the Actus Reus is defined in terms of a prohibited outcome that has to be caused in a particular way by specific conduct.
Arson involves a combination of a prohibited result (damage or destruction of property) and conduct (the property must be destroyed by fire).
Act
Act must be voluntary, in Hill v Baxter, the driver was not in control of his car
Actus Reus can also be Omission and State of Affairs
Omission
The general rule for Omission is that there can be no liability for failing to act, unless the defendant was under a legal duty to take action at the time of the failure to act. A positive duty to act exists in ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Arson involves a combination of a prohibited result (damage or destruction of property) and conduct (the property must be destroyed by fire).
Act
Act must be voluntary, in Hill v Baxter, the driver was not in control of his car
Actus Reus can also be Omission and State of Affairs
Omission
The general rule for Omission is that there can be no liability for failing to act, unless the defendant was under a legal duty to take action at the time of the failure to act. A positive duty to act exists in the following circumstances:
Duty arising from statute:
An example is the Road Traffic Act 1988 which creates the offences of failing to provide a specimen when required to do so and failing to give a correct name and address when required to do so.
Duty arising from a contract
Failure to perform the contractual duty in question can form the basis of criminal liability. I.E R v Pittwood 1902.
Public Duty
A person in public office may be under a public duty to care for others, I.E
R v Dytham 1979.
Voluntary assumption of responsibility
Duty of care where there is a relationship of reliance between defendant and victim, I.E R v Stone AND Dobinson 1977.
Duty due to defendant's prior conduct
If for example the defendant accidentally commits an act that causes harm but he is unaware of the danger he has created, there arises a duty to act reasonably to avert that danger, I.E R v Miller 1983
State of Affairs (absolute liability offences)
These crimes are defined not in the sense of the defendant doing a positive act but consisting in the defendant "being found", "being in possession" or "being in charge'', in cases all the prosecution needs to prove are the existence of the factual circumstances which constitute the crime, I.E R v Larsonneur 1993
Causation
The prosecution must prove that it was the defendant's conduct which caused that result to happen, for example in murder the prosecution must prove that the victim died, in S18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861 the victim was wounded or caused GBH and in criminal damage the property was destroyed or damaged. There are to types of causation:
- Causation in fact - for which the ''but for'' Test is used.
Cases >> R v Pagett, R v White.
2- Causation in law - where more than one factor contributed to the consequence
(R v Smith). Medical treatment does not usually break the chains, one exception is the case of R v Jordan.
Mens Rea
Mens Rea is the mental element of a crime, the guilty state of mind. The two most important types are intention and recklessness.
Intention
Direct intention was defined in the case of Mohan as '' a decision to bring about in so far as it lies within the accused's power, the commission of the offence. Oblique intention is where a person foresees a consequence of his own action but does not desire it for its own sake, a recent case example is the case of Matthews and Alleyne.
Recklessness
This is the taking of an unjustified risk, its also known as subjective or Cunningham recklessness, which means that the prosecution must prove that the defendant realised he or she was taking a risk.
An example of a defendant being reckless is the case of DPP v K.
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
the Contemporaneity Rule
The prosecution must prove that the Mens Rea of a crime existed when the Actus Reus took place, this is known as the Contemporaneity rule and has been interpreted in two ways:
* the first way is the continuing act, this means where the Actus Reus is committed over a period of time as in the case of Fagan v MPC, and Mens Rea is present at some point during its commission.
* The second way is a chain or series of events as in the case of Thabo Meli v R.
Transferred Malice
Mens Rea can be transferred from an intended victim to an unintended one as in the case of Latimer, where the defendant hit the first victim with his belt, however it
recoiled off him, hit the second victim who was an innocent bystander and left him
with several injuries.
Mens Rea can't be transferred for a different Actus Reus as shown by Pembliton, where the defendant threw a stone at another person during an argument, but the stone missed the intended victim, instead it broke a nearby window.
Strict Liability
Strict liability are those crimes where the defendant will be find guilty because he did the Actus Reus, there is not Mens Rea needed. An example of this is the case of Winzar v Chief Constable for Kent, this was where the police were called the remove a drunken man from a hospital. Many Strict liability offences are not truly criminal behaviour but they are treated as offences so as to prevent potential danger to public Health & Safety, I.E causing pollution, driving a vehicle with dangerous brakes or selling contaminated food, these come under the same heading. Some offences which can be punished by imprisonment are not strict liability offences, because that is unfair to put people in prison when they don't have the intention of committing a crime, but some crimes which do carry a possible penalty of imprisonment are strict liability offences, I.E the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Brittain v Storkwain.
Ferough Hamed.
