Elements of a crime -
Principles of responsibility:
This is essential to protect the individuals of wrongful conviction
A safeguard against oppressive state power
In order to be convicted of an offence, the prosecution has to prove that they are
responsible for the behaviour and that they had the required state of mind ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’
The internal structure of an offence:
Actus Reus
The external element of the crime
The act of committing a crime, latin for ‘guilty act’
Responsibility for the crime
Mens Rea
The internal element of a crime
The required state of mind in relation to the criminal act or behaviour
Latin for ‘guilty mind’
The Correspondence Principle:
AKA the coincidence principle
‘Actus non facit nisi mens sit rea’ means an act is not sufficient, there must also be a
guilty mind
This is the idea that actus reus and mens rea have more to them than just there
literal meanings
They are thought of as a sequence of events, the time between them doesn’t remove
liability
Thablo Meli (1954):
Hit the victim over the head to murder him then got rid of what he thought was a dead
body over an embankment. He didn’t know that he hadn’t died yet
The victim died from injuries sustained from the body going over an embankment
Defence said at the time of death they were no longer in the state of mind (mens rea
wasn’t there)
This appeal was dismissed as they had both the mens rea and actus reus at some
point
Fagan (1969):
A policeman asked a man to park closer to the curb than he had done, when he
moved his car closer he accidentally parked his car on the policeman's foot
, He then refused to move his car of his foot
Defense said that there was no mens rea and so the act couldn’t be criminal,
however, the judge said that he formed the intention after the act so it became a
criminal act when he knew he was causing harm and didn’t move
Church (1966):
Hit the girl meaning to cause harm but not murder
Then thought the girl had died so threw her into a river
‘If killing by the first act is manslaughter, a later destruction of the corpse should also
be manslaughter’
Le Brun (1983):
Part of the same sequence of events so time between them doesn’t exonerate them
from liability
Nature of an act -
The requirement for AR:
There must always be an act
AR is essential, however it is possible to be minimal
Deller 1952:
Sold a car without finance when he was under the impression it did have finance
(had the intention to commit fraud)
Without knowing the finance hadn’t gone through so he didn’t actually commit fraud
and therefore couldn’t be charged (no AR)
Short lived MR:
Jakeman (1983):
On a journey to London with the intention of importing drugs
Part way through the journey they changed their mind and decided to leave the
suitcase on the conveyor belt and abandon it
The case however still made it to London and when it arrived it was searched and
she was arrested
She argued she no longer had MR when it arrived in London and therefore cannot be
charged
, She was charged as she did, for a short period of time, have AR and MR at the same
time and that is enough, the crime is already committed
Multiple elements -
S1 Theft act 1968:
‘The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to
permanently deprive’
MR = dishonest + intention to permanently deprive
AR = appropriation + property + belongs to another
All elements must exist in order to prove MR and AR and therefore prove an offence
Good way to think about AR is that it’s anything that’s not MR
AR as a conduct:
The result isn’t important, just doing the offence is enough
E.g. drink driving doesn’t have to cause harm to another person to be an offence
S4 of the Road Traffic Act (1988) - ‘Driving or being in charge of a vehicle under the
influence’
AR as a result:
How it happened isn’t the point
E.g. murder is still murder, however the person was killed
AR as a circumstance:
S1 of the Theft Act (1968) - belonging to another is a circumstance: not an act, not a
result, and not a conduct
AR as a state of affairs:
AKA a status offence or situational offence
E.g. being found in a prohibited place
Larsonneur (1934):
Came to England to marry and get around immigration, went to Ireland as was found
out illegally in England
When she arrived in Ireland they put her back on the ferry to go back to England then
as soon as she got back to England they arrested her for being there illegally
Argued that she wasn’t voluntarily there however she was none the less there and
charged
Principles of responsibility:
This is essential to protect the individuals of wrongful conviction
A safeguard against oppressive state power
In order to be convicted of an offence, the prosecution has to prove that they are
responsible for the behaviour and that they had the required state of mind ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’
The internal structure of an offence:
Actus Reus
The external element of the crime
The act of committing a crime, latin for ‘guilty act’
Responsibility for the crime
Mens Rea
The internal element of a crime
The required state of mind in relation to the criminal act or behaviour
Latin for ‘guilty mind’
The Correspondence Principle:
AKA the coincidence principle
‘Actus non facit nisi mens sit rea’ means an act is not sufficient, there must also be a
guilty mind
This is the idea that actus reus and mens rea have more to them than just there
literal meanings
They are thought of as a sequence of events, the time between them doesn’t remove
liability
Thablo Meli (1954):
Hit the victim over the head to murder him then got rid of what he thought was a dead
body over an embankment. He didn’t know that he hadn’t died yet
The victim died from injuries sustained from the body going over an embankment
Defence said at the time of death they were no longer in the state of mind (mens rea
wasn’t there)
This appeal was dismissed as they had both the mens rea and actus reus at some
point
Fagan (1969):
A policeman asked a man to park closer to the curb than he had done, when he
moved his car closer he accidentally parked his car on the policeman's foot
, He then refused to move his car of his foot
Defense said that there was no mens rea and so the act couldn’t be criminal,
however, the judge said that he formed the intention after the act so it became a
criminal act when he knew he was causing harm and didn’t move
Church (1966):
Hit the girl meaning to cause harm but not murder
Then thought the girl had died so threw her into a river
‘If killing by the first act is manslaughter, a later destruction of the corpse should also
be manslaughter’
Le Brun (1983):
Part of the same sequence of events so time between them doesn’t exonerate them
from liability
Nature of an act -
The requirement for AR:
There must always be an act
AR is essential, however it is possible to be minimal
Deller 1952:
Sold a car without finance when he was under the impression it did have finance
(had the intention to commit fraud)
Without knowing the finance hadn’t gone through so he didn’t actually commit fraud
and therefore couldn’t be charged (no AR)
Short lived MR:
Jakeman (1983):
On a journey to London with the intention of importing drugs
Part way through the journey they changed their mind and decided to leave the
suitcase on the conveyor belt and abandon it
The case however still made it to London and when it arrived it was searched and
she was arrested
She argued she no longer had MR when it arrived in London and therefore cannot be
charged
, She was charged as she did, for a short period of time, have AR and MR at the same
time and that is enough, the crime is already committed
Multiple elements -
S1 Theft act 1968:
‘The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to
permanently deprive’
MR = dishonest + intention to permanently deprive
AR = appropriation + property + belongs to another
All elements must exist in order to prove MR and AR and therefore prove an offence
Good way to think about AR is that it’s anything that’s not MR
AR as a conduct:
The result isn’t important, just doing the offence is enough
E.g. drink driving doesn’t have to cause harm to another person to be an offence
S4 of the Road Traffic Act (1988) - ‘Driving or being in charge of a vehicle under the
influence’
AR as a result:
How it happened isn’t the point
E.g. murder is still murder, however the person was killed
AR as a circumstance:
S1 of the Theft Act (1968) - belonging to another is a circumstance: not an act, not a
result, and not a conduct
AR as a state of affairs:
AKA a status offence or situational offence
E.g. being found in a prohibited place
Larsonneur (1934):
Came to England to marry and get around immigration, went to Ireland as was found
out illegally in England
When she arrived in Ireland they put her back on the ferry to go back to England then
as soon as she got back to England they arrested her for being there illegally
Argued that she wasn’t voluntarily there however she was none the less there and
charged
