Mens Rea (State of Mind) Flashcards
Define Actus Reus
The physical act or omission of a crime
Define Mens Rea
The guilty state of mind of a crime
Can the act or omission of a crime (actus reus) alone constitute a crime?
In other words, must there be a coincidence of the actus reus and the mens rea?
- As a general rule, actus reus alone cannot constitute a crime.
- The actus reus must be accompanied by the mens rea.
- There must be a coincidence of the actus reus and the mens rea, and this has to be true at the time of committing the offence.
HOWEVER
- In strict liability offences, the actus reus alone is enough.
Must the mens rea be continuing throughout the offence?
- No. The mens rea does not need to remain unchanged throughout the entire offence
- The only requirement is that at some point during the commission of the offence, both the mens rea and actus reus coincide
What happens if someone changes their mind after committing the actus reus and mens rea, and then takes steps to remedy their actions?
They will still be guilty, because at the time of committing the offence, there was at some point a coincidence of the mens rea and actus reus
- Person A is committing an act with Person B’s consent.
- Person B then withdraws consent.
- Person A then continues the act.
Explain the specifics of mens rea and actus reus in this situation, and give an example of coincidence of mens rea and actus reus in a continuing act.
At the time of Person A commencing the act, there is the necessary actus reus but there is no mens rea.
When consent was withdrawn by Person B, no actus reus or mens rea would have been present if Person A had stopped.
Person A continued the act (and thus the actus reus continues), knowing they had no consent. When deciding to continue, they have formed the mens rea.
It is at this point that there is a coincidence of actus reus and mens rea, and the offence is complete. Even if they then stop a few moments later.
An example of this would be sexual intercourse where both parties initially give consent.
If during the act the receiving party withdraws their consent, the penetrating party commits the act of rape if they continue.
Is there ever a situation where mens rea is not present, yet a crime is still committed?
Yes - in the case of strict liability offences. All that is required is the actus reus.
The state of mind of the defendant at the time of the offence is irrelevant.
Strict liability offences are rare, they are usually used to enforce statutory regulations such as driving with excess alcohol.
In mens rea, what are the three forms of intent?
Form 1 - Specific Intent
- Specific Intent is where at the time of committing the actus reus, the defendant had the specific intention to bring about a specific result.
- An example is Murder, where the defendant had the intention to either kill or cause GBH.
Form 2 - Ulterior Intent
- Step 1 - the defendant had an initial intention to carry out the actus reus, and in doing so they
- Step 2 - had a further intention to cause a consequence prohibited by the offence.
- An example is Burglary (9(1)(a)) - the defendant has the Step 1 intention to enter as a trespasser, and the Step 2 ulterior intent to cause the prohibited acts of GBH, Damage or Theft.
Form 3 - Basic Intent
- This requires nothing further than the basic intention to bring about a set of circumstances. There is only the required intention to commit the actus reus of the offence. You do not need to prove the defendant intended any further prohibited consequences.
- An example is Burglary (9(1)(b)), you only need to prove the intention to enter as a trespasser. They need to have gone on to (or attempted to) steal or inflict GBH, but it doesn’t matter whether they intended to or not at the point of entering as a trespasser.
A defendant performs a criminal act (actus reus) resulting in a consequence. This consequence was very likely to have occurred as a result of that action.
In such a case, can the jury infer that the defendant foresaw the likely result of their action, and therefore had the necessary mens rea?
- If an outcome was likely or highly likely, then no, this is not enough to infer intent.
- A jury shall not be bound in law to infer that the defendant foresaw a result of their action by reason of it being the probable, likely consequence.
- The jury should decide based on the evidence whether the defendant did intend or foresee the result.
- It cannot be taken for granted that the defendant foresaw the likely outcome.
- Furthermore, even having foresight into the probable consequence will not necessarily amount to having the intention to bring about that consequence. It may however be used as evidence towards proving intention.
HOWEVER
- if a consequence is virtually certain to occur due to the defendant’s action, and the prosecution can prove that the defendant understood that this is the case, then the jury can infer intent.
In proving criminal intent, what steps will the prosecution take?
- They will give an indication of the probability that such an action would result in the consequence. (Was the outcome of the criminal act virtually certain beforehand?)
- They will argue that the higher the probability of the resulting consequence, the more likely that the defendant foresaw the consequence, and
- They will argue that if the defendant foresaw the consequence, then it is more likely that they intended for it to happen.
- The decision of whether to infer intent will the man be a question of fact left to the jury or magistrate to determine.
What is the Eggshell Skull Rule?
- The defendant must take the victim as they find them.
- If the victim suffers from a condition or characteristic that makes the consequences of the attack more severe, this characteristic will not break the chain of causation - the defendant’s act still caused the victim’s injury/death.
Case law - R V Harvey 2010
- The victim had an unknown weakness in an artery behind her ear
- The defendant threw a remote control which hit that precise part of the victim’s head, killing her
- The manslaughter conviction was upheld. The victim would not have died if it were not for the action of the defendant.
The Actus Reus can be caused by one of which two things?
- A physical act or
- An omission (failure to fulfil an obligation or duty).
When can a voluntary omission to act become the Actus Reus?
When there is a duty of care in existence between the parties.
This omission must be committed voluntarily, under the responsible person’s own free will.
Describe the two types of involuntary actions which will not attract criminal liability
-
A physical compulsion to act
A is pushed by B
A then accidentally clashes heads with C
C’s nose breaks (GBH)
A is not guilty of GBH, because A was physically compelled to act by the push -
A sudden loss of control
It must be both
Sudden
and
Unexpected
Examples include sleepwalking, an unexpected black out, a stroke, a sudden cramp.
What is the Automatism defence?
- Automatism occurs when a defendant suffers a complete loss of self-control which is caused by an external factor.
- The physical act will have occurred, but the defendant did not act voluntarily or wilfully.
- Automatism involves more than just a lack of mens rea. It is a claim that he or she did not act at all. Therefore it is also a denial of the actus reus.
- It is an involuntary reflex action, brought on by a complete destruction of voluntary control.
What are the two types of factors that may cause a involuntary reflex action, in relation to automatism?
-
Internal Factors
Such as sneezing, seizures or cramps -
External Factors
Such as a swarm of bees flying into a car, causing the driver to lose control and crash
Describe the need for a causal link between the **actus reus and the mens rea
- If it wasn’t for the defendant’s act or omission, would the consequence have arisen?
- The act or omission must be the operating or substantial cause of the consequence.
Case law - R V McKechnie 1992:
- The victim was assaulted and suffered brain damage as a direct consequence of that assault.
- The victim also had a pre-existing stomach ulcer, which required surgery.
- The brain damage prevented the victim from being able to have surgery on the stomach ulcer, which subsequently ruptured and the victim died.
- The conviction for manslaughter was upheld; the injuries from the assault had significantly contributed to the victim’s death. If it wasn’t for the assault, they would not have had brain damage. Without the brain damage, they would have had their stomach ulcer surgery. If they’d had their stomach ulcer surgery, it would not have ruptured and killed them.
- This was determined to be a causal link.
Explain how an intervening act may break the chain of causation
There must be a causal link between the actus reus and the relevant consequence. This is the chain of causation.
An intervening act, or novus actus interveniens, is an event that breaks the chain of causation between a defendant’s actions and the consequences. This means that the defendant is no longer legally responsible for the consequences of their actions.
The chain of causation can be broken by a new intervening act when it is:
1. free, deliberate and informed, and
2. it becomes the operating or substantial cause of the consequence.
Explain how medical treatment may become an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
- Medical treatment should be accepted practice for dealing with the relevant injuries caused by the defendant. If such treatment results in the victim’s death/further injury, then this will not break the chain of causation. Accepted medical treatment would be a totally foreseeable event.
- But if the medical treatment is wholly inconsistent with accepted medical practice, then it will break the chain of causation.
Case law - R v Jordan 1956:
- The victim had been stabbed, but was treated and recovering well in hospital.
- He was then administered a drug that he was already proven to be intolerant to.
- His death was determined to be the fault of the administered drug, rather than the stab wound.
- The person who stabbed him was not responsible for this death.
Can actions by the victim become an intervening act which breaks the chain of causation?
Anticipated Actions
- In cases of the victim responding to a situation by taking anticipated actions, this will not break the chain of causation. The victim’s actions must be reasonably anticipated - ie any reasonable person would have acted that way.
- If you scare someone who is standing on the edge of a cliff, it would be reasonable to assume they may startle and fall.
Daft Actions
- In cases of daft actions taken by the victim following the defendant’s actus reus, this will break the chain of causation.
- Such action must be voluntary, and daft.
Case law - R v Williams 1992:
- The defendant’s conviction for manslaughter was quashed after it was found that the victim’s own daft action was the novus actus interveniens (intervening act) which ultimately killed him.
- The victim, a hitchhiker, had allegedly accepted a lift from someone but then believed he was being kidnapped and robbed.
- He opened the car door and jumped out. The car was travelling at sufficient speed that this action caused him to smash his own head and die.
Can an Act of God or other Natural Event be sufficient to break the chain of causation?
- A totally unforseeable natural event that results in the injury or death of the victim will break the chain of causation, but only when it becomes the main cause of that injury or death.
- If a defendant leaves a victim lying on the ground and a totally unforeseeable bolt of lightning kills them, then this would break the chain of causation.
- A foreseeable natural event will not break the chain of causation.
- If the defendant leaves the victim on the ground and they die from exposure to the cold, this would not break the chain of causation. It would be totally foreseeable. In the previous example, if they had left the victim on the ground in a dangerous electrical storm, carrying loads of metal in the middle of a field, this too would not break the chain of causation.
