Coincidence/contemporaneity rule Q1

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

• To be guilty of a crime, D must have actus reus and mens rea present at the same time but they do not have to start or stop at the same time.
• In other words, the actus reus and mens rea two must coincide.
• The rule on coincidence works in two ways.

Question 2

Continuing act
What is it?
What two cases?

Answer 2

Firstly, the actus reus can be an ongoing act and as long as the mens rea happens at some point during it, D will be guilty.

• Fagan v MPC
• Kaitamaki

Question 3

Fagan v MPC

Answer 3

Fagan v MPC: Ds actus reus started when he drove his car onto Vs foot.
However, at that point he did not have any mens rea because it was accidental.
However, when D then refused to remove the car, this is the point at which he created his mens rea. D was guilty as his actus reus and mens rea coincided.

Question 4

Kaitamaki

Answer 4

D was having sexual intercourse with V, which was the actus reus of rape. During this ongoing act, V stopped consenting but D continued. The intercourse was an ongoing act so when D realised V did not consent, yet continued, his mens rea coincided with his actus reus.

Question 5

Series of events
What is it?
Cases?

Answer 5

Secondly, the actus reus and mens rea can be seen as a series of events, put together to find D guilty.

• This generally involves the mens rea being present before the actus reus.
• Thabo Meli
• Church

Question 6

Thabo Meli

Answer 6

D intended to kill V (mens rea) and thought he had killed him when he hit V over the head. At this point D had the mens rea for murder, however V did not die. D then threw V over a cliff, thinking he was disposing of the body, but V died from this (actus reus). The whole event was treated as a series of events. D had the mens rea when he hit V, and this was put together with the actus reus of throwing him over the cliff to find D guilty.

Question 7

Church

Answer 7

D and V got into a fight and D knocked V unconscious. When V did not come round, D thought he had killed her (mens rea) so threw her body into a river to dispose of it (actus reus) which caused her death. Treating the incident as a series of events, his mens rea was put together with his actus reus to find him
guilty.