Criminal Law - Actus Rea and Mens Rea (1) Flashcards
What is the actus reus?
Actus Reus: The guilty conduct of the offence. It is usually an act, but may be an omission for some offences.
(1) Voluntary: The act or omission must be voluntary (Hill v Baxter).
(2) Defence of Automatism: If conduct is involuntary, this is a complete defence, provided the Defendant is entirely blameless. The Defendant has the burden of proof, to prove on balance of probabilities.
What are the different types of offences?
Types of Offence: Different offences have different forms of actus reus.
(1) Conduct Crime: Defendant’s conduct itself was illegal, such as penetration without consent.
(2) Result Crime: Defendant’s conduct resulted in an unlawful consequence, such as stabbing someone and thereby causing their death.
(3) State of Affairs Crime: Defendant had no control over their conduct yet still incurred criminal liability, known as ‘absolute liability’, which requires no mens rea (R v Larssonneur).
When may a defendant be liable for omissions to act?
Omissions: Defendant may be liable for omitting to act in 5 situations.
(1) Parent-Child: A parent assumes responsibility for their young child, and may be liable for their death by omitting to act for them (Children and Young Person Act 1993).
(2) Assumption of Responsibility: A special relation may arise if a defendant assumes care for someone, and then fails to care for them (R v Stone and Dobison).
Exception: If the victim chooses their own fate, this is okay (R v Smith).
Discharging Duty: Courts may discharge this duty, such as permitting hospitals to turn off brain dead patients (Airedale v Bland).
(3) Contractual Duties: A contract of employment may oblige a person to act, such as to ensure signalling works for trains (R v Pittwood).
(4) Statutory Duties: Legislation may impose a duty to act, such as requiring people to stop at a red light or at the scene of a crash they have been involved in (RTA 1988).
(5) Dangerous Situations: Individuals must remove dangers they have created through reasonable endeavours, and are responsible for harms caused by failing to do so (R v Miller).
What is causation?
Causation: There is both ‘factual’ and ‘legal’ causation.
(1) Factual: But for the act or omission, the consequences of the act would not have followed.
(2) Legal: The act was the substantial and operating cause of the consequence.
Substantial: More than minimal or trifling.
Operative: The actual cause, not negated by substantial intervening acts.
(3) Intervening Acts: An intervening act may ‘break’ the chain of causation, rendering the defendant not liable.
Natural Event: A natural event may break the chain if unforeseeable.
Victim: The victim may break the chain if voluntary and so daft as to be unforeseeable (R v Roberts).
Third Party: A third party may break the chain if free, deliberate and informed.
Medical: Medical intervening act must be so grossly negligent as to relegate the original act to the background.
(4) Egg-Shell Skull: Victims are to be taken as they come - simply being weaker than the average person does not make the defendant any less culpable for their actions and the consequences of them.
What is the mens rea?
Mens Rea: Mens Rea is the guilty conscience of the defendant, key to most crimes. The threshold differs by offence.
(1) Determination: Gleaned from common law or statutory definition of an offence. If this is silent, mens rea is presumed, unless the law makes unmistakably clear that it is not required (Sweet v Parsley; R v Brown).
(2) Coincidence with AR: AR and MR should coincide in time to amount to an offence (Thabo-Meli).
Effect: This may be a prolonged single event (R v Le Brun).
Intention
Intention: Some crimes require intention.
(1) Direct: The outcome was the defendant’s aim, purpose or design.
(2) Indirect/Oblique: The outcome was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s action, as subjectively recognised by the defendant (Nedrick; Woollin). Juries have discretion to establish this.
Utility: Only available for crimes of specific intent.
(3) Ulterior: Certain crimes require ulterior intent, which means an intention to do something in excess of the original crime, liable even if the intended consequence was not carried out.
Recklessness
Recklessness: Some crimes require recklessness.
(1) Definition: Defendant subjectively foresaw or appreciated the consequence of their actions as a risk prior to taking it, and was objectively unreasonable in those perceived circumstances to take (Cunningham; R v G).
(2) Justification: A risk may be justified in a number of instances, such as a rescue attempt which resulted in someone being mistakenly hurt.
Transfer of Malice
Transfer of Malice: If a defendant intends or is reckless to committing an offence, but accidentally applies it to the wrong party or object, they are still guilty (R v Latimer).
Exception: This does not transfer for different offences. For example, intending to shoot someone, missing and causing property damage will not transfer malice; intending to shoot someone and hitting someone else will.
Attempts: Will generally be simultaneously guilty of an attempt of the failed offence.
Types of Offence
Types of Offence: Offences differ by mens rea.
(1) Specific Intent: Offence requires intention alone.
(2) Basic Intent: Offence requires intention or recklessness.
(3) Negligence: Offence merely requires negligence or carelessness, such as careless driving.
Careless Driving: Liable even in emergency (McCrone v Riding).
Dangerous Driving: Driving which falls far below reasonable standards, including dangerous vehicles.
(4) Strict Liability: Offences which only require actus reus, and no guilty conscience. Most of these are laid out in the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Defences: Cannot rely on defences which negate the state of mind, as state of mind is irrelevant.
