Mens Rea And Actus Reus OF THE Crime

Two elements comprise nearly all offences, a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty act (actus reus). "An action does not make a man guilty of a offense, unless his mind is also guilty. " It is, therefore, not the action which is guilty but respectively the man and his mind. A substantiation of an actus reus is required in every crime. Also, there's a presumption that every element of the actus reus needs proof of a consequent mens rea. Where in fact the presumption of mens rea is not applicable, such offences are called tight liability crimes.

Most crimes have the element of your mens rea. It must always be proven by the Prosecution an unlawful conduct is committed by an accused. Furthermore, it'll usually have to be proven that the accused devoted with guilty brain in engaging such conduct. For example, to ensure conviction for rape in contradiction to s. 2(1), 1981 Offender Law (Rape) Action, it must be proven by the Prosecution that the accused dedicated unlawful do (i. e. , non-consensual sexual activity with a female), realizing that no consent is distributed by the woman or being thoughtless regarding whether or not the woman was consenting (mens rea). When the guilty act (actus reus) includes the particular result which the unlawful do of the accused triggered, a mens rea may need to be proven by the Prosecution as well with regard to the particular outcome. The actus reus, for case, in the crime of assault producing damage in contradiction of s. 3, 1997 Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, is legal take action, i. e. , an assault, and a distinct end result (i. e. , damage).

Intention and Mens Rea

It is impossible to explore somebody's brain to ascertain their intentions. This is of intention, consistent with s. 14, 1861 Offences against the Person Function, deliberated by the Judge of Criminal Charm within the People (DPP) v. Douglas and Hayes, provides that whoever shall open fire at anybody with the objective to carry out murder will be guilty of a felony, if it will lead to any physical harm. The Special Criminal Courtroom convicted the applicants inter alia associated with an offence in contradiction of s. 14 of the 1861 Act. They argued effectively that the requisite objective under s. 14 was not proven. The court's view was conveyed by McWilliam J, proclaiming that unless intent has actually been indicated by the accused, the purpose of the accused can only be determined from a account of his activities and the encompassing circumstances.

What the accused intend or didn't intend, only they can know such. Seemingly, if the accused expressed the objective to do a thing and continued to perform that intention, showing that the accused acted with intention will be realistically simple. Conversely, lacking such an expression, intent is harder to verify and other claims indicated by the accused must be considered by way of a jury or judge as well as the activities of the accused and the circumstances surrounding the situation in approaching to a decision whether objective is usually to be inferred or not.

Omissions Responsibility and Actus Reus

Precisely what is meant by conduct is commonly referred to as an action. In criminal responsibility, an omission or a part thereof cannot form the actus reus of your crime as a general rule. As mentioned by McAuley and McCutcheon, the normal law usually disinclines to punish omissions also to illustrate this time honoured example, enjoying a child drowning in a shallow pool by an able-bodied person will not constitute an offence. But this basic principle is also subject to exceptions.

The accused in DPP v. Bartley had been convicted of different intimate offences. Carney J on moving common sense commented that where a believable issue of felony is presented to a policeman, the policeman under the normal Law does not have any discretion in not investigating the problem and arrest the indentified offender. This work if not carried out strongly constitutes for the policeman an illegality and makes him liable to prosecution on indictment. Palles CB remarked in Creagh v. Gamble a person shall be taken to justice in which a credible suspicion of an felony is present against him. The Peacefulness Official is entitled and work bound as well to apprehend him. This Common Laws principle still can be applied. This is substantiated in R. v. Dytham.

Concurrence of Mens Rea and Actus Reus

If mens rea is to be proven by the Prosecution, it must additionally set up that mens rea been around during the actus reus. At times whether the actus reus and mens rea concurred may not be clear. The accused in Kaitamaki v. R. was recharged with rape. Having sexual intercourse with a female without consent is the actus reus of rape. Realizing that it is non-consensual or whether there may be consent or not when you are reckless is the mens rea of rape. It was established that the girl initially consented to have sexual intercourse with the accused. Regardless of the subsequent drawback of the woman's consent, the accused persisted and did not desist from having sexual intercourse. It had been contended by the accused that at the time of the actus reus (i. e. , penetration), consent was present, hence, he did not have a mens rea. Lord Scarman, the Privy Council, declined this contention by proclaiming that the function of sexual intercourse is carrying on and ends only with drawback. Accordingly, the girl had the to withdraw her consent at whatever time during sexual intercourse, even though she had initially given consent to penetration. The situation of Kaitamaki v. R. can be referred to in sustaining the proposition that an actus reus requires a continuing work, and as such, in order to ensure a conviction, the accused must be proven to have the required mens rea at some period during its continuation, although it is not essential to establish that at the outset the essential mens rea was present with the accused.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)