1. For most offences, the actus reus and the mens rea must be established. If both
components are established, then there is consideration whether or not there is a
valid defence available to the defendant. The acts reus of an offence requires con-
duct on the part of the accused liability and will only accrue when the conduct is
voluntary. In Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 (HL) Lord Denning
stated that, ‘the requirement that it should be a voluntary act is essential…in every
criminal case…’1, Aaron’s actions were voluntarily. Analysing subjective fault,
Aaron had ‘personal awareness of his actions and is cognisant of the relevant cir-
cumstances and consequences comprising the actus reus of the offence,’ 2 however
there is no proof of this personal awareness. Using the objective test, (‘requires
only that a reasonable person would have been aware of the relevant circum-
stances/consequences comprising the actus reus, irrespective of whether the D
himself was aware of them’3), the harm caused to the victim would be considered
serious, judged by ordinary standards. It may not be considered objective as the
court could argue that others might react similarly if they were subject to homo-
phobic abuse and fear for their property. The victim’s injuries included a fractured
skull and a brain haemorrhage. The degree of swelling of the brain was likely to
have caused reduced consciousness, therefore the AR is established due to the in-
fliction of GBH. The attack satisfies the actus reus as it is s a ‘significant (enough)
contribution to the result’4,portrayed in R v Wallace, therefore Aaron’s displays le-
gal causation. It is ‘established that the consequence would not have occurred as
and when it did but for the accused conduct’ 5, in the R v Dyson case. The victim
contracting Covid is not significant enough to render the original act no longer sub-
stantial and an operating cause of the result, thus not breaking the chain of causa-
tion. Draft criminal code clause 17 provides that ‘1) a person causes a result which
is an element of offence when a) he does an act which makes a more than negligi-
ble contribution to its occurrence’. 6 The pathologist explains, the ‘cause of death
was the clot in the main artery to the lung which may have arisen for a variety of
reasons, including and not limited to, prolonged immobility as a result of reduced
consciousness (due to the brain haemorrhage caused by the trauma inflicted by
the blunt instrument) as well as COVID 19 infection (likely transmitted in hospital).’
Aaron’s intended to cause GBH which satisfies the mens rea for murder. The
definition given by Lord Diplock indicates that the defendant needs to foresee the ex-
tent of the harm potentially caused by their actions, no matter how minor the harm.
Upon hearing a noise downstairs, Aarons voluntarily grabbed a piece of metal piping
for protection. In R v Mohan [1976] QB 1 intention is illustrated as ‘a decision to bring
about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the prohibited consequence.’ 7
Aarons displayed intention when he grabbed a weapon and proceeded to strike him.
He displays indirect/oblique intention with murder whereby not what one aims to do
but virtually certain consequence of one’s actions, “I hit him a number of times with
the piping whilst he was on the ground.” However, when questioned by the police he
defends himself, he wasn’t going to let “racist, homophobic scum destroy his busi-
ness,” displaying intent for GBH.
2. Private defence is a common law defence that can be raised where the D has used
force against an unjustified attack either upon himself or others or upon his property.
Section 3, criminal law act (ni) 1967 governs prevention of crime. ‘1. A person may
use force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime’ 8. Private
1 Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 (HL)
2 Smith and Hogan’ Criminal Law 14th Edition pg 114
3 n2
4 R v Wallace [2018] ewca crime 690
5 R v Dyson [1908] 2 kb 959 (ca)
6 Draft Criminal Code Clause 17
7 R v Mohan [1976] QB 1
8 . Section 3, Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967
components are established, then there is consideration whether or not there is a
valid defence available to the defendant. The acts reus of an offence requires con-
duct on the part of the accused liability and will only accrue when the conduct is
voluntary. In Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 (HL) Lord Denning
stated that, ‘the requirement that it should be a voluntary act is essential…in every
criminal case…’1, Aaron’s actions were voluntarily. Analysing subjective fault,
Aaron had ‘personal awareness of his actions and is cognisant of the relevant cir-
cumstances and consequences comprising the actus reus of the offence,’ 2 however
there is no proof of this personal awareness. Using the objective test, (‘requires
only that a reasonable person would have been aware of the relevant circum-
stances/consequences comprising the actus reus, irrespective of whether the D
himself was aware of them’3), the harm caused to the victim would be considered
serious, judged by ordinary standards. It may not be considered objective as the
court could argue that others might react similarly if they were subject to homo-
phobic abuse and fear for their property. The victim’s injuries included a fractured
skull and a brain haemorrhage. The degree of swelling of the brain was likely to
have caused reduced consciousness, therefore the AR is established due to the in-
fliction of GBH. The attack satisfies the actus reus as it is s a ‘significant (enough)
contribution to the result’4,portrayed in R v Wallace, therefore Aaron’s displays le-
gal causation. It is ‘established that the consequence would not have occurred as
and when it did but for the accused conduct’ 5, in the R v Dyson case. The victim
contracting Covid is not significant enough to render the original act no longer sub-
stantial and an operating cause of the result, thus not breaking the chain of causa-
tion. Draft criminal code clause 17 provides that ‘1) a person causes a result which
is an element of offence when a) he does an act which makes a more than negligi-
ble contribution to its occurrence’. 6 The pathologist explains, the ‘cause of death
was the clot in the main artery to the lung which may have arisen for a variety of
reasons, including and not limited to, prolonged immobility as a result of reduced
consciousness (due to the brain haemorrhage caused by the trauma inflicted by
the blunt instrument) as well as COVID 19 infection (likely transmitted in hospital).’
Aaron’s intended to cause GBH which satisfies the mens rea for murder. The
definition given by Lord Diplock indicates that the defendant needs to foresee the ex-
tent of the harm potentially caused by their actions, no matter how minor the harm.
Upon hearing a noise downstairs, Aarons voluntarily grabbed a piece of metal piping
for protection. In R v Mohan [1976] QB 1 intention is illustrated as ‘a decision to bring
about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the prohibited consequence.’ 7
Aarons displayed intention when he grabbed a weapon and proceeded to strike him.
He displays indirect/oblique intention with murder whereby not what one aims to do
but virtually certain consequence of one’s actions, “I hit him a number of times with
the piping whilst he was on the ground.” However, when questioned by the police he
defends himself, he wasn’t going to let “racist, homophobic scum destroy his busi-
ness,” displaying intent for GBH.
2. Private defence is a common law defence that can be raised where the D has used
force against an unjustified attack either upon himself or others or upon his property.
Section 3, criminal law act (ni) 1967 governs prevention of crime. ‘1. A person may
use force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime’ 8. Private
1 Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 (HL)
2 Smith and Hogan’ Criminal Law 14th Edition pg 114
3 n2
4 R v Wallace [2018] ewca crime 690
5 R v Dyson [1908] 2 kb 959 (ca)
6 Draft Criminal Code Clause 17
7 R v Mohan [1976] QB 1
8 . Section 3, Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967
