Criminal Principles
Actus Reus
This is the physical element of the crime. It literally translates to 'guilty act'. There are three ways that you can have an actus reus in a crime. For most crimes, the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant had an Actus Reus and a Mens Rea. There are of course exceptions to this rule.
Actus Reus
This is the physical element of the crime. It literally translates to 'guilty act'. There are three ways that you can have an actus reus in a crime. For most crimes, the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant had an Actus Reus and a Mens Rea. There are of course exceptions to this rule.
Acts
This is a positive act; something that you do and choose to do. It must be a voluntary act. Examples of this can be punching somebody, kicking a person or throwing a ball, firing a gun at somebody, or pushing someone in the road. In Hill v Baxter (1958), the judge stated that if you were stung by bees then it would be an involuntary act; something outside of your control having an effect on you. You as the defendant need to have chosen to do the action. State of Affairs There are some rare instances in which defendants have been convicted even though they did not act voluntarily. R v Larsonneur (1933) - the defendant was ordered to leave the UK. She left and went to Ireland where she was deported back to the UK. She did not want to go back there but was made to, and when she arrived she was then committing an offence. It did not matter that she had not wanted to come back here. |
Omissions
An omission is a failure to act. This can only create an Actus Reus when there is a duty to act. An omission generally cannot make a person guilty of an offence unless there is this duty to do something and they then fail to do so. The example giving by Stephen J: 'A sees B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may drowned. A has committed no offence.' There are of course exceptions to the rule and these are when there is a duty of care owed to people.
|
Causation
We have to prove that the defendant's conduct has caused the outcome. There needs to be a link of cause and effect between the two. This is proven by two tests of factual and legal causation. To have a conviction, you need to prove both of these elements.
We have to prove that the defendant's conduct has caused the outcome. There needs to be a link of cause and effect between the two. This is proven by two tests of factual and legal causation. To have a conviction, you need to prove both of these elements.
Factual Causation
This question is whether or not factually the defendant has caused the outcome. The 'but for' test asks but for not the actions of the defendant would the harm or damage have occurred anyway? We can see this in the case of White (1910), when a man poisoned his mothers milk. She died of a heart attack, but it was seen that the poison had not taken effect. But for not his actions, she would have died anyway. This means he was not the factual cause of her death and he was charged only with attempted murder. Another case to use for factual causation is R v Pagett (1983). In this case, the defendant used his ex-girlfriend as a human shield. He fired at the police who fired back and killed the girl in the cross fire. It was held that but for his actions, the victim would not have been in that position. He was therefore the factual cause of her death. |
Legal Causation
We need to then ask was the actions of the defendant the operating and substantive cause. This means that their actions were the overwhelming reason or the largest reason for why the harm or damage occurred. In the case of Smith (1959) the victim was stabbed. He was then dropped twice on the way to the medical bay and then given treatment described as palpably wrong. The courts said that the defendant was the operating and substantive cause of the injury. It was the overwhelming reason for the injury. Intervening Acts In Jordan (1956), the victim was given terramycin twice. He was allergic to it, and the second time was a negligent act of the medical practitioners involved. This was enough to stop the previous injury from being the operating and substantive cause of the death. If there is a break in the chain of causation then there could not be criminal liability. This is known as a 'novus actus intervienes'. Very rarely will medical treatment break the chain of causation. sometimes, like in Jordan, there will be a substantial action (the incorrect treatment twice given negligently) which will be enough to take away from the original cause of the harm. Thin Skull Rule The defendant also takes the victim as they find them. In Blaue (1975), the victim was a Jehovah's Witness and refused a blood transfusion. The defendant was guilty of murder. The refusal of treatment was not a break in the chain of causation, because if the defendant is going to stab somebody then the actions flowing from this act will be their responsibility. Victim's own act The victim's response or reaction to a criminal offence could affect the conviction. If the defendant causes the victim to react in a reasonable way then the injured suffered will be caused by the defendant. In Roberts (1971) , a girl was injured when she jumped out of a car after the defendant tried to take her coat off in the car. She left the car to escape the sexual advances and was injured. The courts said this was a reasonable reaction to the defendant and he was liable for all the injuries as the cause. in Williams (1992), a hitch-hiker jumped out of a car and died. The prosecution alleged there was an attempt to steal the victim's wallet. The car was travelling at 30 mph and the courts said that if the reaction of the defendant was so daft then it would not be foreseeable and the chain of causation would be broken. |
Mens Rea
Intention
This is where you have the mindset and mental will to do something. You carry out an act and you meant to do this act. This is split into three different types and different crimes require different levels of intention.
Intention
This is where you have the mindset and mental will to do something. You carry out an act and you meant to do this act. This is split into three different types and different crimes require different levels of intention.
Direct Intention
This is where it was the defendant's aim or purpose to bring about the commission of the offence. Direct intention is the most obvious to spot, because it is when somebody punches another person, or throws a brick through a window. This was seen in Mohan (1957) where the court defined intention. A policeman signalled the defendant to stop, who slowed down but then sped up towards the officer, causing him to jump out of the way and injure himself. The jury had to decide if the defendant was aware that his dangerous driving would bring about the prohibited consequence (the injury of the officer). This makes it clear that the defendant's motive or reason for doing the act is not relevant. The defendant decided to bring out a certain prohibited consequence. |
Indirect Intention
This is when the outcome in question, the crime, was a virtual certainty and the Defendant knew this. Also known as 'foresight of consequences', this looks at the idea that a defendant can commit an act and a prohibited consequence can be a secondary outcome that was not the main aim. This is also known as 'oblique intent'. We use the case of R v Nedrick (1986) and R v Woollin (1998) for cases of indirect intention. In Woollin, the defendant threw his baby into his pram against a stone wall. His primary act was to put the baby back into the pram, but a secondary outcome was an injury (a fractured skull). This outcome was a virtual certainty. The defendant was not guilty because he jury said he did not know it was a virtual certainty. The defendant must know that the outcome is a virtual certainty. |
Recklessness
This is where the defendant is aware of the risk but continues on anyway. This comes from the case of R v Cunningham (1957). This case established the 'Cunningham Recklessness' test. In this case, Cunningham was charged with s.23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was ripping gas meters off to get the coins out and release noxious gases with partially asphyxiated his mother in law next door. It was established that you could be reckless as a level of mens rea, and the question was whether the defendant knew about the risk and continued on anyway. It was stated that he was not aware of the risk so he was not reckless. Because he did not have this mens rea, he was therefore not guilty.
This is where the defendant is aware of the risk but continues on anyway. This comes from the case of R v Cunningham (1957). This case established the 'Cunningham Recklessness' test. In this case, Cunningham was charged with s.23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was ripping gas meters off to get the coins out and release noxious gases with partially asphyxiated his mother in law next door. It was established that you could be reckless as a level of mens rea, and the question was whether the defendant knew about the risk and continued on anyway. It was stated that he was not aware of the risk so he was not reckless. Because he did not have this mens rea, he was therefore not guilty.
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
This is the principle that the actus reus and the mens rea need to both happen at the same time. For most offences, you need to have the actus reus and a mens rea, but they both need to be proved to have occurred at the same time as well. In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969), the defendant reversed his car on to the foot of a police officer. He didn't know until the police officer asked him to move the car off his foot. The defendant was then aware and then refused to move. At this point, the mens rea began. The actus reus was a continuing act. This mean that the actus reus and mens rea began to occur at the same time and the crime was committed.
The courts have also seen cases where there is a series of acts that come together and actus reus can continue when the mens rea occurs. This is seen in the case of Thabo Meli, where the defendants injure a man and throw him off a cliff, thinking they killed him. He then dies at the bottom of exposure to the elements, and the courts find them guilty because all of the actions go together as one transaction and carry on to when the mens rea occurs. It is not necessarily a continuing act, but similar in the way the actus reus continues.
This is the principle that the actus reus and the mens rea need to both happen at the same time. For most offences, you need to have the actus reus and a mens rea, but they both need to be proved to have occurred at the same time as well. In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969), the defendant reversed his car on to the foot of a police officer. He didn't know until the police officer asked him to move the car off his foot. The defendant was then aware and then refused to move. At this point, the mens rea began. The actus reus was a continuing act. This mean that the actus reus and mens rea began to occur at the same time and the crime was committed.
The courts have also seen cases where there is a series of acts that come together and actus reus can continue when the mens rea occurs. This is seen in the case of Thabo Meli, where the defendants injure a man and throw him off a cliff, thinking they killed him. He then dies at the bottom of exposure to the elements, and the courts find them guilty because all of the actions go together as one transaction and carry on to when the mens rea occurs. It is not necessarily a continuing act, but similar in the way the actus reus continues.
Transferred Malice
This is the principle where the defendant is guilty if they meant to harm one person but harms another instead. So, if I hit a man with my belt, but catch somebody else with it as well, I am guilty for crimes against both of them. I have the mens rea for both interactions as it is transferred from my original act to the recipients. In Latimer (1886), this happened and the man was guilty even though he had not meant to hit the other woman. When the mens rea formed is for a completely different type of offence, then malice (mens rea) can not be transferred. In Pembliton (1874), the defendant threw a rock intending to hit people but he smashed a window instead. The court said the malice was not able to be transferred and therefore he did not have mens rea for criminal damage. He was not guilty therefore of any offence. |
Strict Liability
This is for offences where there does not need to be a mens rea proven for there to be a crime. As long as the defendant has committed the actus reus, then the crime is complete. Strict liability offences only occur when a section states in the law that this offence is a strict liability one. It must be expressed clearly. In Harrow London Borough Council v Shah (1999), the defendants owned a newsagent's business which sold lottery tickets. They told staff not to sell tickets to people under 16 but one was sold to somebody under 16. They were held liable and received a fine. They argued that they have no intention, but the crime stated that there did not need to be mens rea; as long as the actus reus (selling of the lottery ticket to someone under 16) happened then the crime had occurred and the defendants were guilty. If there is no mention of mens rea for an offence in the law, then there will be a presumption that mens rea is needed for this offence. In Sweet v Parsley (1970), the defendant was charged with 'being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin.' There was no mention of mens rea in this offence. The defendant did not know that the students living in her farmhouse were doing this so she did not have mens rea. It was presumed that mens rea was necessary and that she was not guilty. Advantages of Strict Liability
Disadvantages of Strict Liability
|