Guild Hall,
High Street,
Westhampton,
WE2 5HL
Dear clients,
The two elements of a crime are the actus reus and mens rea. The actus reus is a crime comprises an actus reus, or a criminal act or omission, and a mens rea, or a criminal intent. Actus reus generally involves three elements or components: first one is a voluntary act or failure to perform an act, second is who causes, and third one is a social harm condemned under a criminal statute.
The conduct itself might be criminal. For example the conduct of lying under oath represents the actus reus of perjury. It does not matter that whether the lie is believed or if had any effect on the outcome of the case, the actus reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct. Examples of conduct crimes are things like Perjury, Theft, Making off without payment, rape and possession of drugs or a firearm. The actus reus may relate to the result of the act or omission of the defendant. The conduct itself may not be criminal, but the result of the conduct may be for example it is not a crime to throw a stone, but if it hits a person or smashes a window it could amount to a crime. Causation must be established in all result crimes. Examples of result crimes are things like Assault, Battery, ABH, Wounding and GBH, Murder & Manslaughter and Criminal damage. For state of affairs crimes the actus reus consists of 'being' rather than 'doing' for example 'being' drunk in charge of a vehicle (Duck v Peacock 1949) or 'being' an illegal alien (R v Larsonneur 1933). Occasionally an omission can amount to the actus reus of a crime. The general rule regarding omissions is that there is no liability for a failure to act for example if you see a child drowning in shallow water and you don't do anything to save that child you will not incur criminal liability for your inaction no matter how easy it may have been for you to save the child's life. This general rule however, is subject to exceptions like these:
1. Statutory duty: In some situations there is a statutory duty to act for example to provide details of insurance after a traffic accident or to notify DVLA when you sell a vehicle.
2. Contractual duty: If a person owes a contractual duty to act, then a failure to meet this contractual duty may result in criminal liability: R v Pittwood (1902)
3. Duty imposed by law: The actus reus can be committed by an omission where there exists a duty imposed by law. There are three situations in which a duty may be imposed by law. These are where the defendant creates a dangerous situation, where there has been a voluntary assumption of responsibility and misconduct in a public office. Additionally an omission may be classified as part of a continuing act. Creating a dangerous situation and failing to put it right: R v Miller (1983)

Second element is the Mens rea which translates as 'to have in mind’ from Latin. It is an important element of any crime because it relates to the need to determine whether the defendant held the sufficient state of mind to have the intent to commit the particular crime in question with the ‘guilty mind’. According to the Hyam v DPP [1955] AC 55 case it relates to the idea that there is sufficient “criminal intention”. Sweet v. Parsley [1970] AC 132 case illustrates that mens rea is required when the offence is a true crime as oppose to a normative offence. In general terms, being reckless refers to the taking of an unjustified risk. Recklessness in criminal law has given rise to more difficulty. In particular the question as to whether a subjective test should apply to recklessness or whether an objective test should apply. In the context of criminal damage, originally the leading case in this area of R v Cunningham held that a subjective test applied to determine recklessness which this gave rise to Cunningham recklessness which asks, did the defendant foresee the harm that in fact occurred, might occur from his actions, but nevertheless continue regardless of the risk.
Intention requires the highest degree of fault of all the levels of mens rea. A person who intends to commit a crime, can generally be said to be more culpable than one who acts recklessly. Intention differs from motive or desire (Per Lord Bridge R v Moloney (1985).Thus, a person who kills a loved one dying from a terminal illness, in order to relieve pain and suffering, may well act out of good motives. Nevertheless, this does not prevent them having the necessary intention to kill see R v Inglis (2011). Intention can be divided into direct intent and oblique intent. Direct intent is the majority of cases will be quite straight forward and involve direct intent. Direct intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs for example D intends to kill his wife. To achieve that result he gets a knife from the kitchen, sharpens it and then stabs her, killing her. The conduct achieves the desired result. Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result for example D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths will happen as a result of his actions.
Strict liability crimes are crimes which require no proof of mens rea in relation to one or more aspects of the actus reus. Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to health and safety. Also many driving offences are crimes of strict liability for example speeding, driving without insurance. The use of strict liability in criminal law is controversial as it means a person may be liable where they are not at fault or have taken all reasonable care to ensure compliance of the law (Callow v Tillstone). However, the harshness of strict liability in criminal law is generally tolerated as it brings practical benefits and is often used to provide a greater level of protection to the public in areas where it is perceived that there is a need to provide such protection.

Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions. To be convicted of an ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed a criminal action, but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind which is mens rea.
The offence of theft is set out in section 1(1) Theft Act 1968 which provides that a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. Section 2-6 of the Theft Act 1968 provide definitions of each of the elements of theft. Section 7 sets out the maximum penalty for theft of 7 years. The actus reus of theft I Appropriation, Property and Belonging to another. And the mens rea of theft consists of Dishonesty and Intention to permanently deprive. Appropriation is defined in section3(1) Theft Act 1968 as including any assumption of the rights of an owner. It also covers later assumption where property has been innocently acquired. For an appropriation to take place, there is no requirement that all the rights of an owner are assumed, one right is sufficient which relates to R v Morris (1983).
Section 3 of the Theft Act 1978 provides that A person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount shall be guilty of an offence. The actus reus of making off without payment consists of, Makes off, Without payment, Payment required or expected on the spot and Goods or services done. Makes off simply means depart or leave, R v Brooks and Brooks (1983) If the defendant does not actually leave the spot where payment was due then no offence is committed. If the person is caught before leaving the spot, the correct charge would be attempt to make off: R v McDavitt [(1981). The mens rea of making off without payment consists of Knowledge that payment is required or expected on the spot, Dishonesty and Intentention to avoid payment. There must be an intent to permanently avoid payment for liability to arise for making off without payment:R v Allen (1985). The offence of making off without payment therefore requires the defendant to dishonestly make off without paying for goods received or services done, knowing that payment was expected or required on the spot with the intention to permanently avoid payment.
Fraud Act 2006 section 2(1). A person is in breach of this section if he dishonestly makes a false representation or intends by making that representation, to make a gain for himself or another or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. Section 2(1) of the Fraud Act 2006 defines the offence of fraud by false representation. It can be broken down into its composite elements on the basis of the acus reus and the mens rea of the offence. One actus reus element is the making a false representation which has three mens rea elements; dishonesty, knowing that the representation is false and intention to make a gain or cause a loss. The Actus Reus element is only one element to the actus reus of this offence and that is the making of a false representation. A representation is the communication or presentation of information to others, this may be by words, conduct or a combination of the two. For example, when you first encounter a new teacher, he may make a spoken representation as to

his identity by stating "I am your criminal law teacher" as he enters the room, or may communicate this information by conduct. For example, if someone enters, mounts the platform in the lecture theatre and turns on a PowerPoint presentation with the title "criminal law" it is likely that you will conclude from this conduct that the person concerned is your criminal law teacher. There are two elements to false representation that you may need to take into account, it must be untrue or misleading and it can be express or implied. Untrue or misleading, according to section 2(2)(a) of the Fraud Act 2006, a representation is false if it is untrue or misleading. In other words, a false representation involves creating an impression in the mind of another that something which is false is really true. Picking up on the example used above, if the person who states "I am your criminal law teacher" is really a psychology teacher, an IT technician or a student then representation is false because it is untrue and gives a misleading impression as to the identity of the person before you. Of course, it may be more difficult to establish that a representation by conduct is false. If, for example, the person who mounts the lecture platform and turns on the PowerPoint presentation is an IT technician who has come to check the equipment, you might have concluded that this was your criminal law lecturer but the technician was not representing that this was the case, It is simply that you drew an incorrect conclusion from the facts.
Legal Services Act 2006 covers professional negligence (mistake due to lack of knowledge or care) and Fraud which is covered by the act of negligence and the intention to deceive. Every litigant whether undergoing FPR or CPR procedures in UK Courts (or by way of mediation) must apply to the rules of honest and open disclosure and not be involved with any action which by representation or conduct can be seen to be for personal gain or the personal loss of others. This is also covered under CPR rules of evidence which confirms that no person should make a statement of truth without an honest belief in its validity and no person should allow a third party to make a statement of truth on their behalf which they know to be false.
The actus reus is the objective which basically says if someone takes money from a joint bank account. The mens rea is the subjective so did the person taking the money do so with the intention of causing loss to the other account holder.In order to prove Fraud you need to establish the act and then prove that it was intentionally to cause loss to the other party. If the act does not pass the objective and subjective tests it is not fraud