...Actus Reus Actus Reus means guilty act and is the physical element of a crime. AR is usually an act e.g. in R v Fagan, driving onto a policeman’s foot ad staying there can be an omission. An omission is a failure to act, the act must be voluntary. An example of an involuntary act is someone being stung by a swarm of bees whilst driving and losing control of the car. Some offences, such as murder and manslaughter (Offences Against the Person Act 1861) can be committed by an omission but only if there if a duty to act. A duty to act can arise where there is relationship e.g. R v Stone and Dobinson where the defendants took in the sister but failed to look after her properly. A duty to act can also arise under contract as in R v Pitwood where it was his job to close the gate. There is also a duty to act where the defendant creates a dangerous situation e.g. in R v Miller where the defendant failed to put out a fire he had accidently started. Mens Rea Mens Rea means guilty mind and is the mental element of the crime. It includes intention and recklessness. There are two types of intention; direct intention where the D wants the result as stated in R v Mohan. Indirect Intention is where the D foresees the result as virtually certain. In R v Hedrick where D set fire to a house, killing a child inside, the Court of Appeal stated that in the murder case, the jury were only entitled to find intention where death or GBH were virtually certain as the D realised this. This was...
Words: 393 - Pages: 2
...What is Actus Reus? Actus Reus is the Latin word for the guilty or wrongful act. It is the physical element of the offence. The act or omission must be voluntary (deliberate). If the Defendant has no control of his actions the Actus Reus has not been committed. Actus Reus when proved beyond reasonable doubt in conjunction with Mens Rea ‘the guilty mind’ produces criminal liability. The Actus Reus of an offence is determined through sources, case law and statutes. The main elements of Actus Reus include: * Conduct * Voluntary Behaviour * Causation * Circumstances * Consequences * State of Affairs Conduct The accused must do something to commit an offence. The conduct itself might be criminal. For example taking money from another. The conduct of taking money from another represents the Actus Reus of theft. The Actus Reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct. Examples include: * Theft * Perjury * Using force to obtain property belonging to another * Rape * Possession of drugs Omissions (not doing something) A person cannot be liable for a failure to act unless the Defendant is under legal duty to take action. Duty to act arising from a contract – Pittwood [1902] When a person has a duty to act because of a duty arising from a contract, failure to perform the duty can make you criminally liable. The Defendant was employed by a railway company; he was a level crossing keeper. The Defendant negligently left the...
Words: 2546 - Pages: 11
...AS LAW MODEL ANSWERS Define the actus reus of a crime (7 mins) The actus reus is the physical and external part of a crime. It means the guilty act. The actus reus must be a positive and voluntary act as illustrated in the case of Hill vs Baxter. In this case the judge said that driving whilst fighting off a swarm of bees would prevent the act from being voluntary, therefore preventing the actus reus from being satisfied. If the actus reus of a crime is not satisfied the defendant can never be found guilty. However there are six situations where a failure to act (omission) will satisfy the actus reus of a crime. These are exceptions to the rule in Hill v Baxter that the act committed must be positive. A person will have a duty to act if they assume the duty voluntarily, as illustrated in Stone v Dobinson, where the defendants failed to provide adequate care for their aunt when they said they would look after her. Pittwood illustrates that a contract can require a person to act, in this case the defendant failed to shut a gate, causing death, which he was required to under contract. In Miller the defendant created a dangerous situation and satisfied the actus reus of a crime as he did not take any steps to extinguish a fire which he created. In Dytham the policeman held an official position, which required him to act, therefore he was guilty of misconduct when he failed to act while someone got kicked to death. Gibbins v Proctor illustrates that parents have a duty...
Words: 1220 - Pages: 5
...'Critically evaluate the impact of the House of Lords’ decision in Kennedy (No.2) [2007] UKHL 38 on the law relating to causation.’ This essay requires us to take a critical stand vis-à-vis the development of the law in relation to the issue of causation, as developed by the case of Kennedy (No.2). It will argue that the ratio given in Kennedy (No.2) is still good law, but there are certain situations where the supplier can be found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. Kennedy falls within the scope of the analysis surrounding the Actus Reus element of a crime. Actus Reus is the first step that needs to be considered before establishing criminal liability. This step requires an action, an inaction (omission) or a state of affairs to occur. This action/ inaction should be voluntarily undertaken and the conduct must be linked directly to the consequences that follow (i.e. Causation). Liability for inaction (omission) is difficult to establish, usually because it is challenging to prove a direct causal link between the act of omission and the consequences that occurred. This is because the general rule is that ‘you are not your brother’s keeper’ (you shall bare no responsibility for the actions of another). However, there are certain situations where there is a positive duty to act (ex. if the defendant created the dangerous situation or if there is a certain special relationship between the defendant and the claimant). For causation to be established, a factual and legal...
Words: 1228 - Pages: 5
...Actus Reus The equation for Actus Reus is, Actus Reus, which is a guilty act and must be voluntary. Actus Reus is actually doing the acting, for example stabbing someone. The next part of the equation is plus Mens Rea, this means guilty mind, which means they had to of wanted to stab someone either by Intention, recklessness or malice aforethought. Strict liability can be here instead, this is where committing the offense alone is enough for you to be guilty, for example speeding, it doesn’t matter if you intended to you did it and that’s enough for you to be charged. Absence of defence is next and finally this all equals crime. Actus Reus + Mens Rea or Strict Liability + Absence of a defence = Crime There are four ways in which Actus Reus can be committed. The first is “Results crimes are those in which the actus Reus is defined in terms of prohibited consequences irrespective of how these are brought about.” This is where causation takes place and it is the actual consequences that are important where physical act links with consequences and results. The next for cases are example of causation. T R v Smith 1959, a fight broke out in a military barracks and a soldier was stabbed, on the way to the hospital he was dropped twice and the treatment at the hospital was inadequate, he later died, did he die because of the wound or the care he received. The stabbing was seen as the reason he died. R v Malcherek, a Defendant’s actions put him in the hospital and on life support...
Words: 1392 - Pages: 6
...Abel, Barbara and Cindy to be criminally liable by virtue of section 1(1) Theft Act 1968 it must be proved that they had “dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. Property Belonging to Another - The property in question is the metal fence panels which belong to the Local Authority. The fence panels could be construed as forming part of the “land” as the fence was attached to land and was severed from it. Pursuant to s.4(2)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 Abel, Barbara and Cindy can be held to have stolen this “land” as he actually caused the panels to be severed by the use of hacksaws and appropriated the panels. Appropriation – s.3 Theft Act 1968 – this is the actus reus element of the crime. Abel, Barbara and Cindy have clearly appropriated the panels as only the Local Authority, as owners of the panels, have the right to cut through the metal panels and later sell them for scrap. Dishonesty – s.2 Theft Act 1968 – this is the mens rea element of the crime; the mental intent to intentionally deprive the other of it. Abel = We are informed that Abel planned to go to the playground in the middle of the night after reading about the new project. His intention was to go there and take the fence panels and posts and sell them on as scrap metal. He recruited the help of his daughters and told them to keep quiet if questions are asked. It appears that Abel does not fall within the exceptions contained...
Words: 2687 - Pages: 11
...who discovered the marks on the child’s body did the right thing by waiting for the Supervisor to look at it and diagnose it, because then there is documentation that the proper chains of command were in order. No child should have to suffer through that abuse. It should be a criminal act for an educational professional to see signs of child abuse and not report it to the proper officials. Accomplice liability allows the court to charge someone who is participating in a crime, hiding evidence, or encouraging another person into the commission of a crime. The court makes the accomplice criminally liable for crimes that were committed by a different person. Criminal liability is made up with from two parts, the guilty act or omission (actus reus), and the state of mind or the guilty state of mind (mens rea). In this case accomplice...
Words: 696 - Pages: 3
...Referring back to my earlier example, if the gunmen went into the toy store and shot someone, the knowing act could be considered that he or she knew that someone would be shot. A reckless act occurs when a person carelessly acts. If a driver decides to send a text message while driving down a major highway at excessive speeds, this could be considered a careless act. A negligent act occurs when a person acts with a substantial risk. If the driver was driving on a deserted road with no other drivers in sight and suddenly hits someone on the side of the road, this could be considered a negligent act. All four acts must be present in Mens Rea. The second element of a crime is Actus Reus. This included the physical aspect of the crime committed. Under the model penal code in order to achieve actus reus, the act must be voluntary. The model penal code clearly defines four requirements of a voluntary act. A physical act has to be proven in a crime, however a mental act does not have to be proven. Under the criminal statue states sometimes both the...
Words: 550 - Pages: 3
...Initially, a person cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence unless two or more elements are present, these two elements consist of actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus, meaning guilty act and mens rea, meaning guilty mind. Actus reus is the physical element of a crime which can be an act, an omission (a failure to act) or a state of affairs. The actus reus must be a consequence of voluntary bodily harm and will be involuntary if it is a reflex action. The actus reus must be a physical el As Teresa, also the defendant swings her bag over her head whilst spinning around manically on the dance floor, she is liable for foreseeable consequences of her action as it is foreseeable that her bag strap would in fact catch onto someone in a crowded...
Words: 308 - Pages: 2
...Criminal Law Jordan Miller CJA 354 September 24, 2012 Kristin Mildenberger Criminal Law Former Chief Justice and President of the United States from 1909 to 1913, William Howard Taft once stated “Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.” That statement currently remains to hold true. The first Supreme Court was called to assemble on February 1, 1790, at which time the powers and duties of the Supreme Court were established. The United States Supreme Court currently has one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices and is the highest judicial body in the United States. In the 2009 case of the Supreme Court vs. Joel Tenenbaum, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued former Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum for file sharing 30 songs he illegally downloaded from the Internet. According to Bloomberg (2012): The court, without comment, refused to hear Tenenbaums challenge to a law that let the recording industry collect thousands of dollars from individuals for such downloading. The jury was told to impose damages, set by US copyright law, of between $750 and $150,000 per violation. Jurors set a rate of $22,500 for each of 30 songs he downloaded. (para. 2) A jury subsequently ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000 in fines directly associated with each of the 30 illegally downloaded and shared songs. "I find it hard to believe that the legal system would uphold a six-figure sum against someone just for downloading music," Tenenbaum...
Words: 1350 - Pages: 6
...Attempt is a form of an inchoate offence, in that, although the accused has the necessary mens rea for the offence, his or her actions are not sufficient enough to constitute the actus reus for the complete offence. Attempt is a requisite addition to the criminal law for both practical and moral reasons. Firstly, a person who intends to commit an offence is no less morally liable than an individual who does, simply because his actions did not materialise the offence wholly. Secondly, it is in societies best interests to ‘strike out pre-emptively against criminal behaviour rather than stand idly by and wait for its pernicious consequences to reach fruition before acting’. The law of attempt has been plagued with contentious issues throughout...
Words: 1899 - Pages: 8
...committed an offence. * The conviction of threatening bodily injury carries a sentence of a 3 year probationary period. He also will be required to receive 18 months of counseling, via an Intensive Support and Supervision program. * History of attempted suicide * Described as depressed, lonely, and harboring sick tendencies * Unhealthy obsessions that put both him and the public at risk Actus Reus and Mens Rea * The Mens Rea began when the teenager, wrote and drew images of sexual sadism into his notebook (defecated faces, broken limbs, dead bodies) these images suggest the intent and knowledge to commit such an act * Mens Rea is also found throughout his personal webpage, and throughout the various smut websites the teen visited. * The Actus Reus of threatening bodily injury happened when the teen went to Facebook and issued “threats” to a female through sexual and violently sadistic fantasies and images. The crown can also say that sending the female to a link to his website, which included violent decapitations to women could be form of Actus Reus The Defense’s Argument The defense charged with representing the 18 year old sadist has claimed, his words and ideas were mainly that. The...
Words: 506 - Pages: 3
...Revision Theories of Punishment and Criminalisation • These should be reviewed in order to help answer essay type questions. For example • “What point does causation play in criminal liability”? • Would require an explanation of why it is appropriate to punish someone for what they achieve (eg killing someone) rather than what they set out to achieve (eg beating someone up). The theory of retribution helps here – punishment according to one’s desert which must take into account not only the fact that one has acted wrongfully but also the consequences which ensue. Gerneral Principles of Criminal Liability Liability depends upon • Wrongdoing (actus reus) • Culpability (mens rea) • Absence of any defence General Principles (con) • Key Points • Actus Reus – usually liability requires proof of some act. You must identify that act. Without it there may be no liability however blameworthy the person is. General Principles (con) • Sometimes liability may be based upon an omission to act – 1. Statutory crimes of omission eg failing to wear a seat belt. – 2. Liability for result crimes (eg murder, manslaughter, s.18 OAPA) may be engaged for an omission but only if there is a duty to act. Omissions (con) • Essay Questions • Eg Should there be a general duty to act? 1. Requires statement of the general principle (act needed) 2. Requires discussion of reasons for and against eg promoting good community values, contra autonomy, certainty etc. YOU MUST READ YOUR...
Words: 1418 - Pages: 6
...A Good Samaritan law is a law which compels a person to act for another if they are ill, in harm or other peril. The UK is one of the few European countries that have not criminalised failure to act, but instead the courts and some statutes have provided situations whereby liability will be imposed for a failure to act, or an ‘omission’. This assignment will discuss these circumstances and analyse why they exist. The law of England and Wales states that for someone to be found guilty of an offence there are two elements which must be found; these are actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is a criminal act, and coupled with mens rea, ‘the guilty mind’, liability can often be imposed. However actus reus, deceivingly, does not have to be an ‘act’. There are certain circumstances where a failure to act, or an ‘omission’, is enough to place criminal liability. The general rule in English criminal law is that an omission will not result in criminal liability, for example if a by-passer witnesses someone being stabbed, but does not intervene, then the victim dies, they will not be liable, even though they may have reasonably been able to help. This is because there is no ‘constructed situation’ where it says there is a duty to act. However, there are certain situations where liability will be found, because it is expressed in statute, this is called direct liability; where a statute specifically states that there is a duty to act; for example the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.6 which provides...
Words: 2244 - Pages: 9
...have been committed in the crimes in this scenario, the clear presence of actus reus and mens rea are vital. for the prosecution to prove the existence of both elements of an offence beyond any reasonable doubt. Actus reus being the guilty act, whereas mens rea is the guilty mind, both of which are required in order to find criminal liability. In order to answer this problem question it must first be considered whether Pablo (P) is liable for any non-fatal offences against the person (OAP). The various offences and their definitions are contained in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Pablo and Rose – Pulling hair. The first offence to consider in respect of P is common law battery under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Battery is a summary only offence and carries a maximum penalty of six months or a £5000 fine, or both. P’s motive of jealousy appears to be the significant factor motivating his actions however this is irrelevant to his actions in law. P intentionally: Venna imposed unlawful force: Collins v Wilcock on Rose (R) by pulling her hair. R did not give P permission to assault her, therefore the contact was both physical: Ireland and unlawful. Previous case law has clarified unlawful force to be even the slightest touch R v Brown . The mens rea for this offence is satisfied by either intention or subjective recklessness. With reference to the problem question, the actus reus was the direct physical contact of P with R when he pulls her hair, but...
Words: 1741 - Pages: 7
