Mens rea

Question Describe the mens rea element of a crime and its role in establishing criminal liability, using cases to identify different kinds of mens rea. Answer In order for an individual to be found guilty of a crime it is necessary for the prosecution in the majority of crimes to prove beyond reasonable doubt two important elements: Actus Reus - The physical act performed by the defendant Mens Rea - The guilty mind or mental act of the crime. Mens Rea means a guilty mind and refers to the intention element of the crime. Each offence has its own mens rea e.g. the mens res for murder is the 'unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, this means that contrary to common law the defendant must intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm whilst the mens rea for theft is dishonesty with the intention of permanently depriving as cited in s1 Theft Act 1968. There are three different levels of mens rea, which may form the basis of criminal liability, these are:- * Intention * Recklessness * Transferred Malice Intention is the highest level of mens rea. It is usually concerned with whether a person intends a particular result or consequence following their actions. In law there are two types of intent, Direct and Oblique. Direct Intent is where the defendant has a certain aim or result in mind and intends to achieve that result as in Matthews and Alleyne

  • Word count: 430
  • Level: GCSE
  • 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

The law of Mens rea

Mens rea can be literally translated to mean 'guilty mind,' and it, "Refers to the mental element necessary for the particular mind...1". This is not some abstract mental process; it refers to specific words in the charge or indictment. There are two opposing views on the way in which mens rea of the accused has been established: the subjective approach and the objective approach. The two often come into conflict in court when deciding the accused mental state and there has been much criticism surrounding the way the courts have dealt with this problem. One commentator said that: "Subjectivism became the orthodox academic theory of mens rea earlier this century2." It has also been said that: "Subjective tests heighten the protection of individual autonomy, but they typically make no concession to the principle of welfare...of fellow citizens3." Thus commentators are undecided about the proposal stated in the above question. Generally, recklessness means taking an "unjustified risk", however, its legal definition is not quite as straightforward or the same as its normal meaning in the English language. Careful direction as to its legal meaning has to be given to the jury, so as to avoid miscarriages of justice. However, the word had produced uncertainty because there is no statutory definition and judges have produced two meanings of recklessness for different crimes.

  • Word count: 2737
  • 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

Mens Rea. The different types of mens rea are those of intention, recklessness, and negligence.

22nd October, 2012 Criminal Law “To intend a result is to aim to produce it and to be reckless as to a result is to foresee it”. Is that an accurate summary of the law? Mens rea is the mental fault element of a crime, which creates culpability when it coincides the actus reus of the same crime. Mens rea or the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the crime is essential for his being held criminally liable and no act of the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the consequences it may cause, can be punishable if there is a lack of this mental element. This ensures that only those who are truly considered blameworthy get convicted. The different types of mens rea are those of intention, recklessness, and negligence. Criminal law tends to define intention and recklessness by borrowing their English dictionary meanings, simply of aim or purpose for the former and ‘disregard for the consequences of an action’ for the latter. In this generally broad sense, the law may be summarised to find that to intend a result is to aim to produce it and to be reckless as to a result is to foresee it. However, application of this broad law is subject to precedents with widely differing circumstances and conclusions, thereby disallowing the laying down of concrete principles. A rigid definition of the law in this context is often even considered counter-productive and

  • Word count: 3422
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Murder, Mens Rea and suggested reforms.

Assessment and Feedback: Student Form 2019/2020 The purpose of this form is to ensure you receive targeted feedback that will support your learning. It is a requirement to complete all 3 sections of this form (up to three bullet points per section). Module Criminal law Student ID Number 957159 Section One Reflecting on the feedback that I have received on previous assessments, the following issues/topics have been identified as areas for improvement: NB – for first year students/ postgraduate students in the first term, this also refers to assessments in your previous institution. * Structure is all over place * Tendency to raise points in the middle of paragraph * Few errors Section Two In this assignment, I have attempted to act on previous feedback in the following ways: * Proof read careully * I kept paragraphs and sentences nice and short * Added fullstops to the end of footnotes Section Three Feedback on the following aspects of this assignment (i.e. content/style/approach) would be particularly helpful to me: * Refrencing * Structure * Writing skills Coke’s definition asses the mens rea murder as ‘malice afterthought’ and this term is still greatly used. However, “malice afterthought is now simply a work of art” which in its modern interpretation bears no meaning or little meaning to its words. For example, the term is

  • Word count: 1425
  • Level: University Degree
  • 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

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

aqa law module 4 murder mens rea

Q) ANALYSE THE CURRENT LAW ON MALICE AFORETHOUGHT (module 4) The mens rea of murder is defined as intent to kill or to commit grievous bodily harm (gbh) the former is referred as expressed malice, the later as implied malice The first point of criticism is that both these mens rea elements are not defined in any statutory form. This includes the non-fatal offences which are s47 actual bodily harm (s46), wounding or committing grievous bodily harm without intent. Also wounding or committing grievous bodily harm with intent which is obviously s18 the most serious offence, this is above assault and battery. Another point to consider is that the words malice aforethought themselves are very extremely unhelpful, as murder requires neither malice nor any degree of premeditation, indeed the greater majority of murders are actually committed in hot rather than cold blood. The existence of implied malice (intent to commit GBH) was confirmed Lords Goddard in Vickers and this has attracted considerable criticism in the law profession. In the later case of r v Cunningham in a dissenting judgement lord Edmund Davis argued against intention to commit GBH being part of murder mens rea, this was also discussed in the most resent case of smith- v - Barkshire (2007) but the similar principles of Vickers was held. lord Edmund Davis stated " I find it passing strange that a person can

  • Word count: 867
  • 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