lOMoARcPSD|805298
Lecture notes, lecture semester 1 introduction lectures -
General principles of criminal liability.
Criminal Law (University of Leicester)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
, lOMoARcPSD|805298
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. Harmful conduct – sometimes conduct can in itself be forbidden on the basis that
it constitutes or threatens a harm. Alternatively, it is conduct that causes a harmful
result that is forbidden by the criminal law. The word ‘conduct’ is here used in its
broadest sense to encompass an omission to act or even a state of affairs = ACTUS
REUS
2. Committed in conditions in which we can fairly blame the actor – the problem
here is to determine the indicators of blame. It is widely accepted that two such
indicators exist:
Mens rea : some would only blame those who acted with a subjective mental
element (for example intending to kill). Others would blame those whose actions
objectively failed to conform to a set standard. Either way, the law has developed a
short-hand term, mens rea, to describe this.
Absence of defence : a defendant might have committed an actus reus and have
mens rea but, because of the circumstances, we might not wish to hold them liable
and punish them. They might have a valid defence in that they acted, say, in self-
defence or under duress.
There are however, other models of analysing the constituent elements of a crime.
Glanville Williams, for example, argued that all elements of a crime are divisible
into either actus reus or mens rea and that the actus reus requirement includes
absence of defence. Others argue that means blameworthiness in the sense of
mental element plus absence of defence.
ACTUS REUS
a mere agreement to commit a crime is regarded as a sufficient
manifestation of evil intentions to constitute the actus reus of conspiracy;
similarly, mere words of instruction or encouragement are sufficient to
render one liable for aiding and abetting a crime. Whether these ought to be
regarded as a sufficient manifestation of evil intentions to justify the
imposition of criminal liability is a question to be considered later
the actus reus of every crime is different – the actus reus of theft is the
appropriation of property belonging to another and that of rape is he
penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person who does not
consent to the penetration
with all crimes the actus reus is the external element of the crime – the
objective requirement necessary to constitute the offence. Crimes can be
divided into 2 categories and the essential elements of an actus reus depend
on which of these 2 species of crime youre dealing with
1. Conduct crimes – where the only external element required is the
prohibited conduct itself. Thus the actus reus of the offence of dangerous
driving is simply driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
public place. No consequence of that dangerous driving need be established.
These crimes provide a good illustration of the criminal law punishing
offenders who have caused no obvious harm. However it can be argued that
in the above example there is a harm, namely causing danger to other road
users. If this is indeed a harm, it is clearly a lesser harm than actually killing
another road user.
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
Lecture notes, lecture semester 1 introduction lectures -
General principles of criminal liability.
Criminal Law (University of Leicester)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
, lOMoARcPSD|805298
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. Harmful conduct – sometimes conduct can in itself be forbidden on the basis that
it constitutes or threatens a harm. Alternatively, it is conduct that causes a harmful
result that is forbidden by the criminal law. The word ‘conduct’ is here used in its
broadest sense to encompass an omission to act or even a state of affairs = ACTUS
REUS
2. Committed in conditions in which we can fairly blame the actor – the problem
here is to determine the indicators of blame. It is widely accepted that two such
indicators exist:
Mens rea : some would only blame those who acted with a subjective mental
element (for example intending to kill). Others would blame those whose actions
objectively failed to conform to a set standard. Either way, the law has developed a
short-hand term, mens rea, to describe this.
Absence of defence : a defendant might have committed an actus reus and have
mens rea but, because of the circumstances, we might not wish to hold them liable
and punish them. They might have a valid defence in that they acted, say, in self-
defence or under duress.
There are however, other models of analysing the constituent elements of a crime.
Glanville Williams, for example, argued that all elements of a crime are divisible
into either actus reus or mens rea and that the actus reus requirement includes
absence of defence. Others argue that means blameworthiness in the sense of
mental element plus absence of defence.
ACTUS REUS
a mere agreement to commit a crime is regarded as a sufficient
manifestation of evil intentions to constitute the actus reus of conspiracy;
similarly, mere words of instruction or encouragement are sufficient to
render one liable for aiding and abetting a crime. Whether these ought to be
regarded as a sufficient manifestation of evil intentions to justify the
imposition of criminal liability is a question to be considered later
the actus reus of every crime is different – the actus reus of theft is the
appropriation of property belonging to another and that of rape is he
penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person who does not
consent to the penetration
with all crimes the actus reus is the external element of the crime – the
objective requirement necessary to constitute the offence. Crimes can be
divided into 2 categories and the essential elements of an actus reus depend
on which of these 2 species of crime youre dealing with
1. Conduct crimes – where the only external element required is the
prohibited conduct itself. Thus the actus reus of the offence of dangerous
driving is simply driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
public place. No consequence of that dangerous driving need be established.
These crimes provide a good illustration of the criminal law punishing
offenders who have caused no obvious harm. However it can be argued that
in the above example there is a harm, namely causing danger to other road
users. If this is indeed a harm, it is clearly a lesser harm than actually killing
another road user.
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
