R v Thabo Meli [1954] 1 WLR 228
Judgement for the case R v Thabo Meli
Table Of Contents
Some men hit another man and believing him dead, left the body outside. The judge found as fact that the death had not come from the blow but from the exposure of being left outside.
The defence said that the first act had a mens rea, but no actus reus, while the opposite was true of leaving him outside.
They were convicted and lost an appeal since the judges said that there was really one continued action of trying to kill the victim and dispose of the body.
Seems fair, but where do we draw the line as to how far the mens rea and actus reus can be separated for them still to be considered part of the same occurrence?
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on R v Thabo Meli
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Criminal Law | Actus Reus — Omissions And Causation Notes (25 pages) |
| Criminal Law | Homicide Notes (20 pages) |
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.