Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Every criminal offence can be broken down into an actus reus (guilty act) and a mens rea (guilty
mind). Every offence has at least one of each element.
Some offences have more of one.
When someone is charged, the burden is on the prosecution to prove every element of the
offence, if they don’t, they’re not guilty.
The jury or magistrates must be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
Actus Reus
Actus reus elements describe
● Conduct
● Circumstances
● Consequences
Every offence has at least one of these
Conduct elements
Those were the actus reus is the prohibited conduct itself. No prohibited consequence is
required.
For example, S9 of Theft Act 1968, an example of a conduct element is the word ‘enters’
Circumstance elements
Typically describe something that must exist at the time of the accused conduct
For example, the word ‘property’ in S1 Theft Act 1968
Circumstances can also refer to the status of something
For example, the element can be the phrase ‘belonging to another’ in S1 Theft Act 1968
Consequence elements
Describe results caused by the accused conduct
An example is the word ‘damages’ in S1 Criminal Damage Act 1971
Not every offence has a consequences element. The crimes that do are referred to as ‘result’
crimes, the best examples are murder and manslaughter, V must be dead as a consequence of
D’s action.
However, a word or phrase may describe both conduct and consequence
For example, the phrase ‘inflict grievous bodily harm’ in S20 OAPA 1861, D must inflict, but V
must have grievous bodily harm, its one element, but does 2 things
,Mens Rea
This refers to the mental state of D at the time of the conduct.
● Intentionally
● Recklessly
● Maliciously (means intentionally or recklessly)
● Gross negligence
● Dishonestly
● Does not reasonably believe
Recklessness
R v Cunningham (1957)
‘’The accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done, and yet has gone on
to take the risk of it’’
Strict Liability Offences
Not every offence requires mens rea
For example, speeding, or drink/drug driving
Questions
1. Guilty act
2. Consequence, circumstance and conduct
3. Guilty mind
4. Only if the offence is one of strict liability
5. No, guilty of conspiracy maybe
6. Prosecution
7. Beyond all reasonable doubt
8.
Actus reus - appropriates property belonging to another
Mens rea - dishonestly, intention of permanently depriving
Actus reus - Entry, as a trespasser, a building or part of a building
Mens rea - intent to commit any such offence in subsection 2, as a trespasser
Actus reus - makes a false representation
Mens rea - dishonestly, all of subsection b
Assault and Battery
As defined in S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988, common assault is a summary offence (triable in a
magistrate's court)
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
,Distinction between assault and battery, whilst they are common assault, they are separate
crimes
Assault - any act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate,
unlawful, force on his person
Battery - the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person
Assault
The best known definition comes from Fagan v MPC (1968)
From Fagan the elements of assault are ‘any act’ and causing apprehension of ‘immediate and
unlawful personal violence’
It is possible to cause an assault via an omission, or failure to act, as seen in the case of DPP v
Santa-Bermudez
It is also possible to cause an assault verbally because of R v Ireland (1998)
“the proposition… that words cannot suffice is unrealistic and indefensible.. (the phone caller)
intends his silence to cause fear and intimidation.” Lord Steyn
Apprehension
Is pointing a gun at V an assault?
Logdon v DPP (1976) - Yes, if V thinks that the gun is real and loaded, even if this is not the
case
R v Lamb (1967) - No, if V thinks the gun is an imitation or unloaded, even if this is not the case
In conclusion, V must apprehend or fear
Immediate
Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)
Immediate doesn’t mean instantaneously, however it should be ‘’sufficiently immediately for the
purposes of the offence’’
This was confirmed in the case of R v Constanza
Recklessness
Best definition of recklessness has been found in R v Cunningham, in the context of assault, the
particular kind of an assault the kind of harm to be done is the victim being made apprehensive
of immediate personal violence.
Battery
Fagan v MPC also defined battery as ‘’the use of unlawful force to another person without his
consent’’
, Prosecution must be able to prove:
● The use of force
● Unlawful
● Without consent
● Intentionally or recklessly
Force
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
‘Any touching of another person, however slight, may be a battery’’
Without consent
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
‘’Most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly
consented to by all who move in society and so expose themselves to the risk of bodily contact’’
Mens Rea
R v Venna
‘’D intentionally or recklessly applied force to the person of another’’
Questions
1. If V thinks the gun is real and loaded, yes
2. Is V is apprehending it, but typically yes
3. Yes, because it is not a physical contact of daily life
4. Scott commits ABH or GBH depending on the extent of the injury. Despite the blow
being aimed at Jackson, the punch hit Darren. Because the offence was the same, the
courts must follow the case of Latimer, Scott can still be prosecuted for the assault of
Darren.
Transferred Malice
“The criminality of the doer of the act is precisely the same whether it is A or B who dies. A
person who throws a stone at A is just as guilty if, instead of hitting and killing A, and it hits and
killing”
The leading cases in this area is the cases of R v Latimer (1886) and R v Mitchell (1983)
R v Latimer - D was in an argument with someone, and missed and hit and injured the pub
landlady, despite him aiming for another man, he was still charged through transferred malice.
Every criminal offence can be broken down into an actus reus (guilty act) and a mens rea (guilty
mind). Every offence has at least one of each element.
Some offences have more of one.
When someone is charged, the burden is on the prosecution to prove every element of the
offence, if they don’t, they’re not guilty.
The jury or magistrates must be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
Actus Reus
Actus reus elements describe
● Conduct
● Circumstances
● Consequences
Every offence has at least one of these
Conduct elements
Those were the actus reus is the prohibited conduct itself. No prohibited consequence is
required.
For example, S9 of Theft Act 1968, an example of a conduct element is the word ‘enters’
Circumstance elements
Typically describe something that must exist at the time of the accused conduct
For example, the word ‘property’ in S1 Theft Act 1968
Circumstances can also refer to the status of something
For example, the element can be the phrase ‘belonging to another’ in S1 Theft Act 1968
Consequence elements
Describe results caused by the accused conduct
An example is the word ‘damages’ in S1 Criminal Damage Act 1971
Not every offence has a consequences element. The crimes that do are referred to as ‘result’
crimes, the best examples are murder and manslaughter, V must be dead as a consequence of
D’s action.
However, a word or phrase may describe both conduct and consequence
For example, the phrase ‘inflict grievous bodily harm’ in S20 OAPA 1861, D must inflict, but V
must have grievous bodily harm, its one element, but does 2 things
,Mens Rea
This refers to the mental state of D at the time of the conduct.
● Intentionally
● Recklessly
● Maliciously (means intentionally or recklessly)
● Gross negligence
● Dishonestly
● Does not reasonably believe
Recklessness
R v Cunningham (1957)
‘’The accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done, and yet has gone on
to take the risk of it’’
Strict Liability Offences
Not every offence requires mens rea
For example, speeding, or drink/drug driving
Questions
1. Guilty act
2. Consequence, circumstance and conduct
3. Guilty mind
4. Only if the offence is one of strict liability
5. No, guilty of conspiracy maybe
6. Prosecution
7. Beyond all reasonable doubt
8.
Actus reus - appropriates property belonging to another
Mens rea - dishonestly, intention of permanently depriving
Actus reus - Entry, as a trespasser, a building or part of a building
Mens rea - intent to commit any such offence in subsection 2, as a trespasser
Actus reus - makes a false representation
Mens rea - dishonestly, all of subsection b
Assault and Battery
As defined in S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988, common assault is a summary offence (triable in a
magistrate's court)
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
,Distinction between assault and battery, whilst they are common assault, they are separate
crimes
Assault - any act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate,
unlawful, force on his person
Battery - the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person
Assault
The best known definition comes from Fagan v MPC (1968)
From Fagan the elements of assault are ‘any act’ and causing apprehension of ‘immediate and
unlawful personal violence’
It is possible to cause an assault via an omission, or failure to act, as seen in the case of DPP v
Santa-Bermudez
It is also possible to cause an assault verbally because of R v Ireland (1998)
“the proposition… that words cannot suffice is unrealistic and indefensible.. (the phone caller)
intends his silence to cause fear and intimidation.” Lord Steyn
Apprehension
Is pointing a gun at V an assault?
Logdon v DPP (1976) - Yes, if V thinks that the gun is real and loaded, even if this is not the
case
R v Lamb (1967) - No, if V thinks the gun is an imitation or unloaded, even if this is not the case
In conclusion, V must apprehend or fear
Immediate
Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)
Immediate doesn’t mean instantaneously, however it should be ‘’sufficiently immediately for the
purposes of the offence’’
This was confirmed in the case of R v Constanza
Recklessness
Best definition of recklessness has been found in R v Cunningham, in the context of assault, the
particular kind of an assault the kind of harm to be done is the victim being made apprehensive
of immediate personal violence.
Battery
Fagan v MPC also defined battery as ‘’the use of unlawful force to another person without his
consent’’
, Prosecution must be able to prove:
● The use of force
● Unlawful
● Without consent
● Intentionally or recklessly
Force
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
‘Any touching of another person, however slight, may be a battery’’
Without consent
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
‘’Most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly
consented to by all who move in society and so expose themselves to the risk of bodily contact’’
Mens Rea
R v Venna
‘’D intentionally or recklessly applied force to the person of another’’
Questions
1. If V thinks the gun is real and loaded, yes
2. Is V is apprehending it, but typically yes
3. Yes, because it is not a physical contact of daily life
4. Scott commits ABH or GBH depending on the extent of the injury. Despite the blow
being aimed at Jackson, the punch hit Darren. Because the offence was the same, the
courts must follow the case of Latimer, Scott can still be prosecuted for the assault of
Darren.
Transferred Malice
“The criminality of the doer of the act is precisely the same whether it is A or B who dies. A
person who throws a stone at A is just as guilty if, instead of hitting and killing A, and it hits and
killing”
The leading cases in this area is the cases of R v Latimer (1886) and R v Mitchell (1983)
R v Latimer - D was in an argument with someone, and missed and hit and injured the pub
landlady, despite him aiming for another man, he was still charged through transferred malice.
