Actus Reus and Mens Rea: How it Works Flashcards
What is the actus reus and the mens rea?
The actus reus is the forbidden situation and the mens rea is the mental element, both of which must be proven to find a person guilty of a crime in Scotland.
What is meant by ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’
Latin for “the act is not criminal unless the mind is also criminal”
What is meant by ‘Dole’?
A word used instead of mens rea.
Where there is no voluntary act can a person be liable for a crime?
No, as Hogg v Mcpherson 1928 emphasised that where there was no voluntary act (no actus reus) then an accused is not liable for a crime.
What is the general rule for omissions?
That a person is not liable for failure to act unless the law has put you in a poition to act.
In what circumstances might a person have a duty to act?
If told to by STATUTE
If it is stated in a contract of employment (a police officer has a duty to stop a crime from happening)
Family relationships - parents have duty to protect their children
Creating a dangerous situation, may be prosecuted for failure to act if you do not try to stop it.
What is the difference between an objective approach and a subjective approach in establish mens rea?
Subjective approach is where the law concentrates on what the accused actually intended/forsaw/knew.
Objective approach is a test as to what the ‘reasonable person’ would have intended/forsaw/knew.
Are motive and mens rea the same?
No motive may impose higher sentences and assist in evidence but it is not the same as mens rea.
What happened in Quinn v Lees?
This was a case where the motive was irrelevant.
- Accused set a dog to attack 3 children
- He led evidence that he done so as a joke
- Although the motive was a joke the mens rea was the intention to attack the children and thus was guilty of assault.
How would ‘recklessness’ be defined?
Recklessness is where a person has an utter disregard for the consequences of their act.
What is meant by ‘transferred intention’?
This is where a person commits an offence they did no intend but they still possessed the mens rea to commit that crime, usually found in assault.
What is the ‘thin skull rule’?
Established in the case of HM Advocate v Robertson and Donoghue 1945 the ‘think skull rule’ is where you take your victim as you find them. For example if a person has brittle bones and you pushed him over which caused a broken arm that may deem an aggravated assault as although the normal person may be unaffected we take our victim as we find them.
The general rule is that a person is liable for what they do, not what others do, what is the exception to this rule?
Where you act as part of a group, even where one does not take part, all can be held criminally liable as was the case in HMA v Fraser and Rollins.
Where a group of people have committed a crime, what is needed to satisfy art and part liability?
A group of two or more people who are ALL party to a common, prior plan.
The case of HMA v Gallacher 1951 also held that ‘spontaneous coming together for a criminal purpose’ also satisfied art and part liability
When would a group of people committing a crime NOT be liable for the actions of one of the group?
Where that one person has stepped outside the common plan for a wholly unforseeable reason, then liability does not extend to the whole group but just to that one person.
This was the case in Boyne v HMA where several men committed a robbery and one of the men brought a knife and stabbed and killed someone. He was solely responsible for murder, however if the rest of the group were aware he had a knife (party to the common plan) they would ALL have been liable for murder.
