Mens Rea and Actus Reus Flashcards
Learn about Mens Rea and Actus Reus
What is mens rea and actus reus?
State of mind and the act.
Mens rea alone will not amount to an offence. Thinking about committing a crime is not committing a crime. The act alone cannot amount to crime unless they are accompanied by mens rea at the time of the act or omission.
What is specific intent?
Crimes of specific intent are only committed where the defendant is shown to have had a particular intention to bring about a specific consequence at the time of the criminal act. E.g. murder and burglary. The intention of the offender is critical - without intent the offence does not exist.
What is basic intent?
Other criminal offences (that do not require a specific intention) require no further proof of anything other than the basic intention to bring about the given circumstances. E.g. burglary simply requires proof that the person entered the building as a trespasser and that he went on to commit a prohibited act.
What is the difference between specific and basic intention?
The important difference between offences of specific and basic intent is that, in the case of basic intention, recklessness will.often be enough to satisfy the mental element.
What is subjective recklessness?
The requirements of subjective recklessness are satisfied in situations where the defendant foresees the consequences of his/her actions as being probable or even possible.
What is transferred mens rea?
The state of mind required for one offence can, on occasions, be transferred from the original target to another. This only operates if the crime remains the same.
A defendant cannot be convicted if he acted with mens rea for one offence but commits the actus reus for another offence.
E.g. an offender throws a rock to hit a person and it smashes the window
Issues of transferred mens rea in relation to the liability of accessories.
If the principle offender’s intention are to be extended to an accessory, it must be shown that those intentions were either, contemplated and accepted by that person at the time of the offence, or that they were transferred.
E.g. person X encourages person Y to hit person Z. Y decides to attack a different person. Person X will not be liable for the assault because it was not contemplated and agreed by person Y to hit person Z. But if person Y attempts to hit person Z but injures another person, then transferred mens rea may result in person X being liable for those injuries even though X had no wish for that person to be so injured
Actus reus - the behavioural element of an offence. When providing the required actus reus you must show:
- that the defendant’s conduct was voluntary, and
- that is occurred while the defendant still had the requisite mens rea.
Explain “voluntary act”
It must be shown that the defendant had the requisite mens rea at the time of carrying out the actus reus.
However, there is no need for that state of mind to remain unchanged throughout the entire commission of the offence.
E.g if person X poisons person Y intending to kill Y at the time, it will not alter X’s criminal liability if X changes his mind immediately after and does everything he can to halt it’s effects.
If the actus reus is a continuing act , it may begin without mens rea, but the required mens rea may come later. The offence is complete at the first moment that the two elements unite.
E.g. a motorist was directed to pull over. The vehicle runs over the police officer’s foot without proof it was deliberate. It was clear that it was deliberate when the vehicle was left there after being told by the officer what had been done.
Explain “ommissions”
Criminal conduct is most often associated with actions but occasionally liability is brought about by a failure to act.
Having established such a DUTY you must also show that the defendant has voluntarily omitted to act as required or that he/she has not done enough to discharge the duty.
Explain circumstances of D.U.T.Y
Dangerous situation created by the defendant
E.g. starting a fire and not doing anything to stop it
Under statute, contract or a person’s public office
Statute - driver who fails to stop for a crash
Contract - a crossing keeper omitted to close the gate and results in a train crash
Public office - Police fail to intervene to prevent an assault
Taken it upon him/herself - the defendant defendant decides to carry out a duty and then fails to do so.
E.g. a defendant accepted a duty to care for her partner’s mentally ill sister who died of neglect.
Young person - in circumstances where the defendant is in a parental relationship with a child or young person.
E.g. An obligation exists for the parent to look after the health and welfare of the child and he or she does not do so.
Explain “causal link” or “chain of causation”
You must prove that the consequences would not have happened “but for” the defendant’s act or omission.
The defendant’s behaviour may trigger other events or aggravates existing circumstances.
E.g. a defendant attacked the victim who suffers from an ulcer, causing him to have brain damage. The brain damage (causes by the assault) prevented doctors from operating on the ulcer, which eventually ruptured killing the victim.
In some cases significant delay can occur between the acts which put in train the criminal consequences.
E.g. the defendant transported an accomplice to a place near the victims house. 13hrs later the accomplice shot and killed the victim.
Explain “Intervening act”
1.) The causal link can be broken by a new intervening act provided that the new act is free deliberate and informed.
E.g. a drug dealer may not be responsible for an overdose by someone else’s deliberate exercise and free will to take the drug.
2.) Defendant’s must take their victims as they find them.
E.g. man throws remote at his wife and she dies because she has an egg shell skull.
Explain “Intent”
- ) The intention to commit the act and
- ) an intention to get a specific result (aim, object or purpose)
- )Intent means the act or omission must be done deliberately.
- ) It must be more than involuntary or accidental.
Explain “recklessness”
Acting “recklessly” involves consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk.
It is a subjective test.
It must be proved that the defendant was aware of the risk and it was unreasonable for him to do so.
