#19107 - 1 Actus Reus & Mens Rea - Criminal Law

Actus reus and Mens rea

• Types of offences:

• Basic intent crime: crimes where intent or recklessness will satisfy MR e.g. criminal damage, assaults (except s 18)

• Specific intent crime: offences where only intent is enough to satisfy MR (recklessness is not enough) e.g. murder, theft, s18 assault requiring intent to cause GBH

• Ulterior intent crimes: where prosecution must prove an extra element of MR e.g. 9(1)(a) burglary, prosecution must prove intent to commit one of the 9(2) offences

• Conduct crimes: crimes where there must be an existence of certain circumstances at the time of D’s conduct to establish AR (e.g. rape - requires the victim to not have consented at the time of D’s penetration)

• Result crimes: AR is only established if the defendant’s conduct causes certain consequences (e.g. murder, must have caused person’s death)

• State of affairs crimes: MR doesn’t have to be proved. Offence is established if a certain state of affairs exist, even if the defendant had no control over it. Defendant’s fault doesn’t have to be proven & it doesn’t matter if the act was involuntary e.g. drink driving would apply even if spiked

• Negligence crimes: crimes where defendant’s failure to act to the standards of a reasonable person is enough to satisfy the MR [objective test] (intent or recklessness don’t have to be proved) e.g. careless driving offences (which is different to drink driving)

• Strict liability crimes: crimes where MR or negligence aren’t needed to convict, only AR e.g. drink driving offence

___________________________________________________

• Elements needed for a conviction

1. Actus Reus (Guilty Conduct) – anything other than MR

2. Mens Rea (Guilty state of mind at the time of the act) – not necessary for strict liability offences

3. Absence of a valid defence

• The legal burden and evidential burden of PROVING BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that defendant is guilty (AR & MR) is on the prosecution > then, the defendant has the evidential burden of proof to raise enough evidence of fact to bring forward a specific defence as an issue to discuss e.g. self-defence. The prosecution must then disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt

ACTUS REUS

• Generally, NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR OMISSIONS (failing to act) i.e. generally, liability requires a positive act

EXCEPTIONS: omissions are sufficient for criminal liability where there is

1. SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: special relationship between defendant and victim e.g. parent-child or spouses

2. VOLUNTARY ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY over victim (expressly or impliedly): where you assume the duty of care over the victim and fail to act e.g.

• Proctor who wasn’t the mother was found guilty of murder because she assumed responsibility over the child by living with him and receiving housekeeping money

• They took victim in when she couldn’t take care of herself and made ineffectual attempts to help her before, so they assumed responsibility and a duty to act to help her

• If a victim who is of sound mind (i.e. capable of deciding their fate) instructs the defendant not to act, the defendant may be released from duty to act

• There will be a special relationship where defendant assumed a duty of care for the victim e.g. paid or given something to care for the victim; invite someone unable to care for themselves to live with you

3. CONTRACTUAL DUTY TO ACT e.g. lifeguard, doctor, nurse, teacher, emergency service workers, care workers, employee whose job was to act

• Doctors may be discharged from contractual duty to act where the patient:

1. Refuses treatment for religious reasons

2. No reasonable prospect of improvement

*But they are liable if the act positively and accelerate death

4. STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO ACT: where statute imposes a duty to act

• e.g. road traffic act says you must stop at red lights and after a road accident; parental duty to care for your children under Children Act 1989

• Unlike the other duty exceptions where you will usually be prosecuted for the consequences of the act (e.g. someone’s death because you failed to act), failing to act on a statutory obligation will usually prosecute you for the omission itself e.g. not stopping at red light, not taking care of child

5. DEFENDANT CREATED A DANGEROUS SITUATION: where defendant realises they have created a dangerous situation, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to remedy the danger

• The defendant’s conduct must be voluntary to establish AR e.g. if you were physically forced or were having a seizure and hurt someone, you wouldn’t have actus reus for assault; or if you were being attacked by bees and swerved car, you wouldn’t have AR of careless driving

• Automatism: defence that their conduct wasn’t voluntary (i.e. where defendant is morally blameless for the action because complete loss of voluntary control e.g. if you have seizure and lose control of car, you didn’t commit AR of careless driving (you were not to blame); but, if you fell asleep because of tiredness, automatism wouldn’t apply as you were partly to blame because you should have stopped and rested once you felt tired

• Exception = strict liability crimes

• CAUSATION: in result crimes prosecution must prove that the defendant caused the necessary consequences to establish AR

• e.g. actus reus for GBH is – wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (really serious harm) > so for actus reus to be complete, prosecution must show that A’s actions caused the GBH

• You must prove both:

1. FACTUAL CAUSATION: ‘BUT FOR’ TEST - but for the defendant’s actions, would the result have occurred as and when it did?

2. LEGAL CAUSATION:

1. Was the defendant’s conduct the OPERATING AND SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE of the result?

• Did the defendant’s conduct contribute significantly to the result? (doesn’t have to be only or main cause, just contributed more than minimally)

2. Was there an INTERVENING ACT that broke the chain of causation? If so, legal causation is not established

*Generally, if the event was reasonably foreseeable, it is unlikely to break causation*

• Escape rule: D is liable for foreseeable (involuntary) escape (i.e. forced to escape); not liable for injuries from unforeseeable (voluntary) escape where the victim’s escape is ‘so daft as to make it a voluntary act’ = intervening event

• Suicide: liable if victim committing suicide was a reasonably foreseeable result of D’s conduct

• Third Party intervention: reasonably foreseeable acts of third parties will not break the chain of causation; unforeseeable acts of third parties will break the chain of causation (e.g. if police forced to shoot back at D and hits innocent, D is liable because shooting back was a foreseeable result of D shooting at them first)

• Negligent medical treatment: doctor’s negligent medical treatment of victim doesn’t break chain of causation, unless the medical negligence was so independent of defendant’s act that it made the D’s conduct insignificant

• Natural events: Unforeseeable acts of god will break the chain of causation

3. Thin skull / egg-shell rule (take your victim as you find them): still liable for the full result, even if victim had unknown pre-existing condition which made them more susceptible to injury from D’s conduct + applies if victim chooses not to accept medical treatment for religious reasons

Mens rea

Types of MR:

• Direct intent: the outcome was the primary aim or goal of the defendant’s conduct

• Indirect...