Mens Rea And Actus Reus Of A Crime
Two elements comprise nearly all crimes, a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty act
(actus reus). “An act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind is also
guilty.” It is, therefore, not the act which is guilty but respectively the man and his
mind. A substantiation of an actus reus is required in every crime. Also, there is a
presumption that every element of the actus reus needs proof of a consequent mens
rea. Where the presumption of mens rea is not applicable, such offences are called
strict liability crimes.
Most crimes have the element of a mens rea. It must always be proven by the
Prosecution that an unlawful conduct is committed by an accused. Furthermore, it
will usually have to be proven that the accused committed with guilty mind in
engaging such conduct. For instance, to ensure conviction for rape in contradiction
to s.2(1), 1981 Criminal Law (Rape) Act, it must be proven by the Prosecution that
the accused committed unlawful conduct (i.e., non-consensual sexual intercourse
with a woman), knowing that no consent is given by the woman or being thoughtless
regarding whether or not the woman was consenting (mens rea).
If the guilty act (actus reus) involves the particular outcome which the criminal
conduct of the accused caused, a mens rea may have to be proven by the
Prosecution as well with regard to the particular outcome. The actus reus, for
instance, in the crime of assault producing injury in contradiction of s.3, 1997 Non-
Fatal Offences against the Person Act, is criminal act, i.e., an assault, and a distinct
outcome (i.e., injury).
It is impossible to explore somebody’s mind to determine their intentions. [3] The
meaning of intention, in line with s.14, 1861 Offences against the Person Act,
deliberated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in The People (DPP) v. Douglas and
Hayes, [4] provides that whoever shall fire at any person with the intention to carry
out murder shall be guilty of a felony, whether or not it will result to any physical
harm. The Special Criminal Court convicted the applicants inter alia of an offence in
contradiction of s.14 of the 1861 Act. They argued successfully that the requisite
intent under s.14 had not been proven. The court’s judgment was conveyed by
Two elements comprise nearly all crimes, a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty act
(actus reus). “An act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind is also
guilty.” It is, therefore, not the act which is guilty but respectively the man and his
mind. A substantiation of an actus reus is required in every crime. Also, there is a
presumption that every element of the actus reus needs proof of a consequent mens
rea. Where the presumption of mens rea is not applicable, such offences are called
strict liability crimes.
Most crimes have the element of a mens rea. It must always be proven by the
Prosecution that an unlawful conduct is committed by an accused. Furthermore, it
will usually have to be proven that the accused committed with guilty mind in
engaging such conduct. For instance, to ensure conviction for rape in contradiction
to s.2(1), 1981 Criminal Law (Rape) Act, it must be proven by the Prosecution that
the accused committed unlawful conduct (i.e., non-consensual sexual intercourse
with a woman), knowing that no consent is given by the woman or being thoughtless
regarding whether or not the woman was consenting (mens rea).
If the guilty act (actus reus) involves the particular outcome which the criminal
conduct of the accused caused, a mens rea may have to be proven by the
Prosecution as well with regard to the particular outcome. The actus reus, for
instance, in the crime of assault producing injury in contradiction of s.3, 1997 Non-
Fatal Offences against the Person Act, is criminal act, i.e., an assault, and a distinct
outcome (i.e., injury).
It is impossible to explore somebody’s mind to determine their intentions. [3] The
meaning of intention, in line with s.14, 1861 Offences against the Person Act,
deliberated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in The People (DPP) v. Douglas and
Hayes, [4] provides that whoever shall fire at any person with the intention to carry
out murder shall be guilty of a felony, whether or not it will result to any physical
harm. The Special Criminal Court convicted the applicants inter alia of an offence in
contradiction of s.14 of the 1861 Act. They argued successfully that the requisite
intent under s.14 had not been proven. The court’s judgment was conveyed by
