Actus Reus.

De Montfort Law School Department of Law Criminal Law: Level 1 Practice Coursework ) Carla has been charged with an offence contrary to s 3 of the Deer Act 1991: Section 3 of the Deer Act 1991: Actus Reus = If any person takes or kills any deer between the expiry of the first hour after sunset and the beginning of the last hour before sunrise This is the Actus Reus because it shows every part of the definition of the offence, except references to the mens rea required or any defences. Actus Reus of the offence broken down into its elements (Acts/Omissions/Events & Circumstances/Consequences): Looking at the actus reus of the offence, we can clearly see that it requires a physical act to be carried out. An omission will not suffice. It also shows that in order for the actus reus to be satisfied, the act must take place according to a specific circumstance and a particular consequence must result. *Act --> Taking or killing a deer *Circumstance --> Between the expiry of the first hour after sunset and the beginning of the last hour before sunrise *Consequence --> Death of a deer Is the Actus Reus satisfied? The act of the actus reus in this case is clearly satisfied as Carla did 'fire' (i.e. shoot) at the deer. The fact that she thought she was shooting at a fox is irrelevant as her action resulted in the killing of a deer. The second element of the actus reus

  • Word count: 1747
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

HOMICIDE . MURDER - ACTUS REUS The definition of murder is derived from the writing of the jurist Sir Edward Coke: 'Murder is when a [person]...unlawfully killeth...any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought...'. A bit of a mouthful, you may think! Anyway, let's look at actus reus of the wording - essentially, the unlawful killing of a human being - in a little detail. The word 'unlawfully' can be taken to exclude killings for which the accused has a complete and valid justification, such as killing in self-defence or in wartime. 'Killeth' or 'kills' means 'causes the death of', and I shall deal with causation soon. For the moment, take on board that murder is also a result crime and in accordance with the rule laid down by the House of Lords in R v MILLER [1983] 1 All ER 978 - HL (the cigarette that caused the fire) there is a duty to act in the face of a danger one has created oneself. 'Any reasonable creature in rerum natura' can be safely shortened to 'any human being'. This therefore excludes any 'baby' in a womb, so if death is caused before the child has an existence independent of its mother, there can be no murder. This is now settled law following the House of Lords' decision in ATTORNEY-GENERAL's REFERENCE (No. 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245 HL. This leaves us with the question of what happens if a baby is born and

  • Word count: 2850
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Actus Reus and Mens Rea To be convicted of any crime under English law, two elements need to be proved, the actus reus and the mens rea. The actus reus for any crime is different, the actus reus is most commonly known as the 'guilty act' or the 'state of affairs', while the mens rea constitutes the 'state of mind' of the accused. The mens rea of a crime may be present, but if the actus reus is absent, no conviction can be made. It will have to be determined in the present case whether both the actus reus and mens rea can be proved, in order to identify and judge, David and Alex's actions. From the details given, it is necessary to decide whether Alex was responsible for her actions or was it due to non-insane automatism. As regards David, the issue of self-defence has to be considered, but also the actions of the medical staff and whether they could have been responsible for Alex's death, rather than David. "The actus reus includes...the absence of ant ground of justification or excuse, whether such justification or excuse be stated in any statute, creating the crime or implied by the courts in accordance with general principle..."1 Williams's definition of actus reus seems to encapsulate the meaning of the principle. It suggests that a person has carried out a crime if they have committed the act and have no recognisable defence and therefore must be convicted. In

  • Word count: 2281
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

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. The first act was carried out with the requisite mens rea but the actus reus of murder/manslaughter was

  • Word count: 2656
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Actus Reus and Mens Rea.

Connor McCann Unit 24 P1 + P2 So what is Actus Reus? Actus Reus is the conduct of the accused (The defendant). It can be an act of commission or act of omission, and it must be a voluntary act that causes the damage or harm. It can also be a "state of affairs". . Commission or act of Omission: A person may incur criminal liability for failing to do that which the law requires him to do as much as by doing that which the law prohibits. The actus reus includes the state of affairs or circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, together with the results or consequences (if any) that flow from that act or omission. It is essential that the defendant acted voluntarily and that he caused the injury, damage or harm. In other words, actus reus includes all the elements of the offence indicated in the definition except the mens rea (the state of mind), if any. . Must be a voluntary act: Generally the accused's conduct must be a voluntary act or omission. The accused will not be held liable for acts done in a state of automatism. Automatism resulting from self-induced intoxication is no excuse. . The accused must cause the prohibited consequences: The crime must be caused by some conduct by the accused. That conduct need not be a direct cause of the crime, but can be through the agency of others. The conduct need not be the sole or the effective cause of the

  • Word count: 635
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Omissions as actus reus

Omissions as actus reus Normal rule is that omissions can’t make a person guilty of an offence. Exceptions to the rule – . A duty undertaken voluntarily 2. A duty through one’s official position 3. A duty which arises because D has set in a motion a chain of events 4. A duty because of a relationship 5. A contractual duty 6. A statutory duty A statutory duty – Act of Parl can create liability for a duty. For example failure to report a road traffic accident, and or failing to provide a specimen of breath. These offences can only be committed by failing to do something. For example s1 of the Children and Young person’s Act 1933 puts the parents who are legally responsible for a child under duty for providing food, clothes, medical aid and lodging for their children. A contractual duty - Where a person is under a contract to act, his failure can be a criminal offence. R v Pittwood (1902) Pittwood was a railway crossing keeper and omitted to shut the gates. Having opened the gates to allow a cart to pass over the line he forgot to close it before going off to lunch. A few minutes later a passing train killed the driver of a hay cart as it was crossing the line. He was convicted of manslaughter as it was his job to keep the line safe. A more modern example would be if a lifeguard left his post unattended to. His failure to leaving the post

  • Word count: 717
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

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." 1 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. A- 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

  • Word count: 1147
  • Level: GCSE
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

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

  • Word count: 1155
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

CRIMINAL LAW Explain the meaning of actus reus Actus reus is the Latin term for a guilty act or the prohibited conduct. It must be a voluntary act as stated in Bratty v by Denning. An involuntary act is one done by the muscles without control of the mind or you may be concussed. Actus reus is all the external elements of a crime. Actus reus can also be an omission. The general rule is that there is no duty to act as stated by Stephens J when he said that there was no obligation to save a stranger from drowning, however there are exemptions. For example having a duty to act because of your contract as illustrated in R v Adomako where the anaesthetist failed to notice a detached oxygen tube and thus failed to carry out his contractual obligations; in R v Gibbons & Proctor it was held that there is a duty to look after your relatives (need not be blood related) where a father and step mother failed to care for their daughter/step daughter; in R v Stone and Dobinson it was held that where you take on responsibility for care then you have a duty to fulfil that care unlike in this case where Stone was held to have failed in his duty to look after his sick sister adequately after she moved into his home. In R v Miller it was held that failing to resolve a dangerous situation you created could lead to liability – the defendant accidentally set light to a mattress and then moved

  • Word count: 2292
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

The Actus Reus of a Criminal Attempt

The Actus Reus of a Criminal Attempt An attempt is an inchoate offence, which is concerned with the preparatory stages of other criminal offences. Liability for criminal attempts is generally covered by s 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 19811, which provides: "If with intent to commit an offence to which the section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence." Under this provision, a person can be convicted of attempting to commit any offence, which is either indictable or triable either way, but one cannot be convicted for attempting a summary offence.2 In this situation, Parliament may decide that this gap must be filled by a specific statutory attempt.3 The actus reus of a criminal attempt is defined by s 1(1) of the CAA 1981, which requires the accused to have committed an act which is 'more than merely preparatory' to the offence committed.4 Where trial is on indictment, the judge should determine whether there is evidence on which a jury could properly find that the accused's actions did go beyond mere preparation, but it is then for the jury to decide that question as one of fact.5 How far does D have to go in order to be guilty of an attempt? The answer given by the common law was that, it was a matter of fact: was the act sufficiently proximate to (e.g.

  • Word count: 3494
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay