Actus Reus and Mens Rea Flashcards
Actus Reus of the Theft Act 1968
- Appropriates property belonging to another
Mens Rea of the Theft Act 1968
- Dishonestly
- With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
Actus Reus of S 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
- Touches another person (B)
- The touching is sexual
- B does not consent to the touching
Mens Rea of S 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
- Intentionally
- A does not reasonably believe that B consents
Four elements of Mens Rea
- Intention
- Recklessness
- Negligence
- Strict Liability
What is the subjective approach
- Examines what the defendant himself was thinking
What is an objective approach
- examines what a hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the defendant would be thinking
What is intention and what approach is used
- You intend something if that is your purpose
- Known as Direct Intent
- Subjective Approach is used
What is recklessness and what approach is used
- You are reckless if you are aware of a risk and take that risk
- A subject approch
How is a risk examined
- Objective test weighing up the social utitlity or value of the activity against the probability and gravity of harm
Caldwell v MPC [1982] AC 341
It was held that D did not need to foresee the risk, the test was objective
R v G [2003
Reversed caldwell, the test is now subjective in that D needs to foresee the risk (determining what is a risk remains objective)
What is negligence
- you are negligent if you fail to act in conformity with what is reasonable
- The question is whether the defendant did what the reasonable person would have done (objective approach)
What is Strict liability
An offence of strict liability is one where the prosecution do not have to prove any fault element in relation to one or more elements of the actus reus
- Objective approach
Arguments for strict liability
- Easy to prove
- Sanction without fault indicated public disapproval of conduct
- Deterrance
- Encourages higher standards
arguments against Strict Liability
- Morally wrong
- Undeserved Punishment
- Respect for the law lessened
- No higher standards
- Fault still relevance to sentence
Continuing act theory
If the incidence are treated as one continuous act, then both the actus reus and mens rea can be proved
What case proves continuing act theory
Fagan v Metropolitan Commissioner
One transaction principle
Multiple offences are being taken as one transaction in order to provide both the mens rea and actus reus
What case proves the one transaction principle
R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59
Transferred Malice
Where an offence targeted at a particular individual or piece of property results in injury or damage to another person or piece of property, we can say that the mens rea is transferred
What case proves transferred malice
R v Latimer (1886) 174 QBD 359
