ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA Flashcards
In a criminal case, who does the burden of proof usually rest with? What standard of proof must they prove?
- the prosecution must prove that without reasonable doubt that the defendant should be convicted of the offence
What is the Criminal Cases Review Commission?
- CCRC is the official independent body that has investigated thousands of potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
- for anyone who thinks they’ve been convicted wrongly of an offence
Define actus reus
- guilty conduct
- it is the guilty act itself
Define mens rea
- it is the guilty state of mind
- the mental aspect of the crime
What is a conduct crime?
- where the conduct used is the offence, and there is no no required result element
- for example theft, the conduct of taking somone elses possession is the theft, there is no required result such as the person realising etc.
What is a result crime?
- here it is not enough that D acts in a particular way , certain consequences must follow from that behaviour before AR is established
- eg killing someone
In certain rare instances, the defendant doesn’t have to do anything to be convicted. Explain this using an authority.
- R v Larsonneur
- French citizen was deported from Ireland to England against her will. She was convicted of an offence of being found illegally in the United Kingdom despite the fact that she had no choice in the matter.
What is the general rule on liability for omission to act?
- there is no general duty recognised by criminal law for liability for omission to act
What are the 5 exceptions to the general rule that there is no liability for an omission to at? Give authorities.
1) special relationship
- where there are family ties or an assumption of responsibility
- R v Gibbins and Proctor
2) breach of contractual obligation
- eg medical staff to patients, lifeguards to swimmers
- R v Pittwood
3) breach of statutory obligation
- car drivers have to stop at red light
4) duty to avert danger
- R v Milller
5) voluntary assumption of responsibility
How does the jury establish indirect intent?
- was the consequence virtually certain to occur from act or omission
- there may not be a desire
- mens rea is still present
R v Moloney
R v Hancock and Shankland
R v Nedrick
It is clear that in cases involving indirect intent, jurors will have to consider what the defendant foresaw at the time of their act (or omission); but in the absence of a clear confession, how
can the jury make sure of this?
Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides some assistance.
Where what the defendant foresaw has to be proved:
(a) the test is what the defendant themselves foresaw, not what a reasonable person would have foreseen; but
(b) what a reasonable person would have foreseen is a good indication, which a jury can take into account in deciding what the defendant did foresee
What is direct intent?
- this is where the D had a full desire and purpose to commit the offence
What is recklessness?
- did D foresee a risk (subjective) and then going on without justification (objective) to take that risk
R v Cunningham andMetropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell
What is transferred malice?
- if D has the ‘malice’ to commit a crime against one victim (or one particular piece of property) the malice is transferred so that the MR they had with one victim is transferred to AR they commit on another unintended victim
- this is under R v Latimer
Is there any limit to the doctrine of transferred malice?
- under R v Pembliton
- it has to be the same type of crime for transferred malice to apply
Define negligence
- the word is generally understood to mean ‘carelessness’: you are accusing the person of failing to measure up to the standards of a reasonable person in that given situation (in our examples, the reasonable doctor or the reasonable motorist).
What does the Road Traffic Act 1988 say about negligent drivers?
- s3 says if a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
McCrone v Riding
- doesn’t matter if they are learner driver, they can still be negligent and be committed of offence under s3 of Road traffic Act
What does the RTA 1988 s2 say about dangerous driving?
In order to secure a conviction under s 2 of the Act, the prosecution would have to establish that the defendant drove ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place’.
Dangerous driving is defined in s 2A of the 1988 Act. Under s 2A(1), the defendant must have driven in a manner which fell far below what would be expected of a careful and competent driver, and it would be obvious to the careful and competent driver that driving in such a way would be dangerous.
Alternatively, under s 2A(2), the defendant will be driving dangerously if the condition of their vehicle is such that it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver that driving it in that condition would be dangerous.
In all cases under s 2A, therefore, the defendant is being assessed by the standards of the reasonable person (the careful and competent driver). They will only be guilty of an offence under s 2, however, if their behaviour has fallen far below what would reasonably be
expected of a competent driver. Something more than the simple negligence we saw when considering careless driving is required.
Summarise strict liability. What is it?
Thabo-Meli v R
Order the different types of mens rea in hoe much thought are behind them.
- direct indent
- indirect intent
- recklessness
- strict liabilty
- no mens rea
