Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Question 1

What two elements comprise a criminal offence?

Answer 1

Actus reus and mens rea

Question 2

What does the Latin phrase “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”?

Answer 2

“the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind”

Question 3

In theft, what elements are required for it constituting to a criminal offence?

Answer 3

the actus reus requires the appropriation of property belonging to another (three elements) while the mens rea requires dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive (two elements).

Question 4

What is an actus reus (eg battery)?

Answer 4

the actus reus of an offence will consist of an act or physical element. Eg in the offence of battery, the actus reus is use of unlawful force.

Question 5

What must the accused’s conduct be if he is to incur liability and what case relates to this?

Answer 5

• The accused’s conduct must be ‘voluntary’ if he is to incur liability.
• Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland [1936]

Question 6

Explain the case of Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland [1936]

Answer 6

• B was convicted of murder.
• He said he had been overcome by a ‘sort of blackness’ during the event and relied on the defence of automatism.

Question 7

What is automatism?

Answer 7

Automatism is one of the defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant.

Question 8

What case is a good example of reflex actions as a form of automatism?

Answer 8

Hill v. Baxter [1958] where someone was stung by a swarm of bees while driving and lost control of the car.

Question 9

What are “state of affairs” offences and give an example case?

Answer 9

• cases where the actus reus consists of circumstances but no “acts”, ie “being” rather than “doing” offences.
• eg. in Winzar v. Chief Constable of Kent (1983), D was convicted of “being found drunk on a highway” contrary to s.12 of the Licensing Act 1872.

Question 10

What is an omission?

Answer 10

failure to act which will constitute an actus reus

Question 11

Are omissions criminally punishable?

Answer 11

No

Question 12

When are omissions criminally punishable?

Answer 12

When the law ascribes to D a positive duty to act

Question 13

What is an example of a statutory duty to act?

Answer 13

Eg. s.6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988: a driver who fails to provide a sample of breath when required to do so by a constable under certain circumstances commits a criminal offence.

Question 14

What is an example case of a contractual duty to act?

Answer 14

Pittwood (1902)
- D was a railway crossing keeper who forgot to shut the gate before a train came.
- Someone crossing the line was struck by the train and killed.
- The court held that D owed a duty to all users of the crossing and not just to his employers and was thus found guilty of manslaughter.

Question 15

What is an example case of a duty to act arising from a special relationship?

Answer 15

Gibbins and Proctor (1918):
- Gibbins was the father to children including 7yo Nelly
- Gibbins lived with his girlfriend Proctor.
- They kept Nelly separate from the other children and omitted to feed her so that she died.
- Gibbins buried Nelly claiming she had run away.
- Both were convicted of murder on the basis that Gibbins had owed a duty of care as her father and Proctor had assumed a duty of care as her carer.

Question 16

What are two example cases of a duty to act based on endangerment?

Answer 16

Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969);
and R v. Miller (1983):
- D was squatting in a house and fell asleep while smoking.
- The mattress caught fire and instead of putting it out, he got up, moved into another room and went back to sleep.
- The house caught fire and the HoL upheld his conviction for arson.
- D had unwittingly brought about a situation of danger to property.
- Once he realised this, he was under a self-induced duty to act positively to avert it.

Question 17

What is an example of a duty to act case due to defendant’s prior conduct?

Answer 17

Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
- P, a police officer, approached F and asked him to move his vehicle
- F did so, reversing his car onto the foot of P
- P told F to move the car off his foot. F swore at him and refused, turning the engine off
- F was convicted of assaulting a police officer

Question 18

Describe the omission case of R v. Stone v. Dobinson (1977)

Answer 18

• Couple (S and D) had taken S’s sister to live w them
• The sister suffered from anorexia which deteriorated to the extent that she was confined to bed
• The couple omitted to care for her properly, failing to call medical services, resulting in her death
• The couple were to have assumed a duty of care for the sister and were found guilty of manslaughter

Question 19

Why can the issue of when a duty to act ceases cause difficulties for the courts? Reference a case.

Answer 19

Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993):
- The HoL attempted to provide guidance on when a person can be released from a duty to act.
- This was a civil case involving a person in a persistent vegetative state who was on a life support machine following injury in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster.
- His parents sought to have the life support discontinued.
- The HoL held that it was not unlawful.

Question 20

When is causation an issue?

Answer 20

In result crimes (ie where a consequence is part of the actus reus) eg murder

Question 21

When is causation not an issue?

Answer 21

In conduct crimes

Question 22

What are the two key tests which must be satisfied to establish causation?

Answer 22

Factual causation and legal causation

Question 23

What is the test under factual causation?

Answer 23

Factual causation is established by applying the “but for” test, which requires proof that the consequence would not have occurred “but for” the accused’s actions.

Question 24

Which key case is used to establish factual causation?

Answer 24

R v. White (1910):
- D poisoned his mother’s drink w intent to kill her.
- She died after taking some of the drink but it was later found that she had died of a heart attack rather than poisoning.
- D was charged w murder but acquitted as he had not caused the death of his mother in fact.

Question 25

Why is legal causation needed on top of factual causation to establish causation?

Answer 25

The need for legal causation is due to the fact that whilst the “but for” test tells us who cannot be liable, in practice it is too wide to exist in isolation, potentially catching a wide range of individuals (ie multiple causes). It is over-inclusive: eg D’s parents are also a factual cause of the prohibited result: but for their creation of D

Question 26

How can legal causation be understood?

Answer 26

Under legal causation the test is: can D be said to be the substantial, blameworthy and operating cause of that result?

Question 27

What does the de minimis principle state with regards to legal causation?

Answer 27

The de minimis principle states that where D’s act is a minimal contribution to the result, D will not be the legal cause of death.

Question 28

What was established in Pagett (1983) with regards to legal causation?

Answer 28

It was established that for liability to exist, D’s conduct need not be the sole or even main cause of death but it must contribute significantly to the result.

Question 29

Strict liability + case example

Answer 29

Offences that do not require mens rea. The defendant can be guilty of the offence even if they did not intend to commit it.

Example of Strict Liability: Gammon v AG for Hong Kong (1985) - The defendant was a builder who constructed a building without proper approval. The court held that he was guilty of the offence of building without proper approval, even if he did not intend to do so.

Question 30

Transferred malice + case example

Answer 30

When the defendant intends to harm one person but accidentally harms another, the defendant is still guilty of the offence.

Example of Transferred Malice: R v Pembliton (1874) - The defendant threw a stone at a person during a fight, but the stone missed and broke a nearby shop window. The court held that the defendant was not guilty of the offence of assault, but guilty of the offence of criminal damage.

Question 31

Negligence + example case

Answer 31

A type of mens rea that involves the failure to exercise reasonable care and results in harm to another person.

Example of Negligence: R v Adomako (1994) - The defendant, an anesthetist, failed to notice that a patient’s breathing tube had become disconnected during an operation, which resulted in the patient’s death. The court held that the defendant’s conduct amounted to gross negligence, which was enough to establish the mens rea of manslaughter.

Question 32

Duty of care + example case

Answer 32

The legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others.

Example of Duty of Care: R v Miller (1983) - The defendant, who was homeless, fell asleep while smoking a cigarette, which started a fire in the building where he was staying. The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to take reasonable steps to extinguish the fire or call for help, which he failed to do.

Question 33

Breach of duty + example case

Answer 33

The failure to meet the standard of care required by law.

Example of Breach of Duty: R v Adomako (1994) - The defendant, an anesthetist, failed to notice that a patient’s breathing tube had become disconnected during an operation, which resulted in the patient’s death. The court held that the defendant breached his duty of care by failing to monitor the patient’s condition and respond to the emergency.

Question 34

What happened in the legal causation case of R v Pagett (1983)?

Answer 34

The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield during a police shootout, which resulted in her death. The court held that the defendant’s actions were the cause of her death, as the police would not have fired if he had not used her as a shield.

Question 35

Reasonable person test + case example

Answer 35

Reasonable Person Test: The standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation.

Example of Reasonable Person Test: R v Blyth (1856) - The defendant was charged with the offence of causing damage by neglecting to repair a dam. The court held that the defendant’s conduct would be considered negligent if it fell below the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation.