Combining Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Question 1

State and explain the temporal coincidence rule.

• ‘Liability should depend upon proof that the defendant had the relevant mental attitude at the moment of doing the acts which form the actus reus of a criminal offence.’
• The mens rea and the actus reus must occur simultaneously.

Answer 1

x

Question 2

Give two ways in which the temporal coincidence rule can be avoided.

• The temporal coincidence rule can be avoided in supposed corpse cases where the D attacks the V with the appropriate mens rea and has mistakenly believed that he has killed them but does not have the corresponding mens rea when the actual actus reus occurs. (Thabo Meli v the Queen, R v Church)
• It can also be avoided during continuing acts when the mens rea is grafted onto an act which has already begun without it and is still continuing. (Fagan v MPC)

Answer 2

X

Question 3

Explain the legal position relating to the supposed corpse cases
.
- “In cases of homicide temporal, coincidence is satisfied notwithstanding the fact that the act which causes death is unaccompanied by mens rea, if this absence is the result of the accused’s believing that he has already caused death by a prior unlawful act.” (Thabo Meli v the Queen, R v Church)

• This was expanded to include the principle that if an unlawful act is carried out in order to conceal a previous unlawful act, the later unlawful act is considered part of the sequence of events that began with the initial unlawful act (R v LeBrun).

Answer 3

X

Question 4

State and explain the correspondence principle.

• ‘If the offence is defined in terms of certain consequences and certain circumstances, the mental element ought to correspond with that by referring to those consequences or circumstances. If a mental element as to a lesser consequence were acceptable, this would amount to constructive liability’
• Offence definitions should match any relevant conduct, consequence or circumstance with an exactly matching mental state on the part of the defendant. Without such correspondence, it is thought, the defendant will be punished for the wrong harm.

Answer 4

x

Question 5

Give two examples of how the correspondence principle is not always adhered to.

• Manslaughter
• • “Compliance with the correspondence principle would require A to be guilty of a crime of homicide if, and only if, the mental element corresponded with its actus reus (conduct causing death) by ‘referring to (that) consequence’. In fact, liability for manslaughter does not require such correspondence. Far from requiring the mens rea to refer to the consequence of death, it requires not even a recognition on the accused’s part that his conduct was likely to cause harm.”
• Murder
• • “Liability does not depend upon the accused intending (or foreseeing) death as a result of his actions. Intending serious bodily harm, without more, is enough.”

Answer 5

x

Question 6

Explain the doctrine of transferred malice.

• “‘If the defendant intends a particular consequence, he is guilty of a crime of intention even though his act takes effect upon an object (whether person or property) that was not intended.’ The principle probably applies to transfer recklessness as well as intention.”
  Put simply, the mens rea corresponding to the unlawful act is ‘transferred’ from the intended person or thing to another person or thing if that person or thing is the unintended object of that mens rea. The mens rea on the intended unlawful act must ‘concur’ with the unintended result.

Example:

• A throws a stone at B. B ducks and hits C standing nearby.
• • The mens rea of intent is transferred from B to C.
• A fires a gun at a B who is in a vehicle with the windows up. The bullet rebounds off the door and hits a plate glass window nearby. A is charged, inter alia, with criminal damage.
• • This is a complicated one, but logically it makes sense. A intends to kill B by gunshot. It is virtually certain that while shooting at B, he will also damage B’s property. By way of indirect/oblique intention, A, in addition to the intent to kill B, has the intent to damage his property. The malice is transferred from damage to the car to damage to the plate glass window.

Answer 6

c

Question 7

Explain why the doctrine of transferred malice is a qualification of the correspondence principle.

• “This holds, in effect, that the requirement that actus reus and mens rea concur is not breached where the formal requirements of the offence charged ‘concur’ with the result intended or foreseen by the accused, even if the accused did not intend or foresee the actual result which occurred.”
• The actus reus and mens rea against the intended object must correspond with the actus reus and mens rea against the unintended or unforeseen object. Simply, for the malice to transfer, the actus reus against the unforeseen object must be in the same ‘family’ of offences. However, the actus reus need not be exact.

Example

• The mens rea of intent to kill a man cannot be transferred to an intent to kill a dog (damage to property)
• • The intent to cause harm to a an cannot be transferred to damage to a plate glass window (R v Pembliton).
• “A posts a letter-bomb through his neighbour B’s door. B witnesses this and, although he does not know what the package contains, immediately posts it back. A’s partner C, who knows nothing of A’s plans, opens the package, which sets the house on fire, injuring C.” The malice against B would be transferred to C.