Topic 2 – Actus Reus
Actus Reus Voluntary Acts -
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” - an act does not make someone guilty unless the
mind is also guilty
- Criminal law is concerned with conduct and act or omission to act
Actus Reus = ‘Guilty Act’
Mens Rea = ‘Guilty Mind’
- A criminal offence contains two elements – the defendents guilty act (actus reus) and
the defendents guilty mind (mens rea)
- An exception to this is offences of strict liability which do not require a mens rea
element – strict liability offences are generally minor offences such as traffic offences
eg. Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence
- Even if the person is unaware that they are doing something wrong eg. Driving
without insurance without realising that their insurance company has cancelled their
contract – they are still liable
- Driving without insurance is the guilty act = Actus Reus
- Actus reus element is also called the external element because it is the physical part of
the offence
- Mens rea element is also called the internal element of the offence because it is about
what is going on inside the defendant's mind
- These external and internal elements respectively provide the framework for
determining D’s criminal liability
- However, the determination of criminal liability is not complete until defences are
considered – so even if D has both the actus reus and the mens rea elements for the
crime there are some circumstances where the criminal law considers that D is not
liable anyway eg. If I act in self defence I might have the actus reus (I might cause
injury to my attacker) and I will also have the mens rea (I intended to cause injury to
my attacker) - yet if I meet the requirements for self defence I will not be liable
No actus reus = no crime (even if they have a mens rea)
Conduct = act or omission to act
(Instead of saying ‘guilty act’ use ‘guilty conduct’
- There are offences where the conduct needs to take place in specific circumstances –
these are called conduct crimes
- Not all conduct crimes have to have a result eg. Attempted rape, perjury (the
intentional act of swearing a false oath)
, - Result Crimes = must be an act or an omission taking place in proscribed
circumstances and causing a proscribed result eg. Murder, manslaughter, causing
actual bodily harm or criminal damage
Voluntary Act = a positive willed act (has the person moved their arms, legs and limbs) - the
external movement of D’s body
Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
- In this case Lord Denning stated that the requirement that it should be a voluntary act
is essential in every criminal case
Person D will not be liable for a voluntary act if they are acting as an automation –
automatism is where someone is not in control of their actions
Hill V Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277
- In this case, the court cited examples of when D might be suffering from automatism
eg. D experiencing a bang on the head (unconsciousness) - D would not be in control
of her limbs in that situation – the movement of D’s limbs is involuntary – it did not
flow by an exercise by D of her free will – no voluntary act there
Winzar V Chief Constable of Kent (1983) Unreported
- D was taken to a hospital on a stretcher and was found to be drunk and was told to
leave the hospital.
- When he was seen slumped on the corridor floor, the police were called and the police
took D to their police car outside on the highway – they then promptly charged him
with being found drunk on the highway
- Being found drunk is a state of affairs – it is not a voluntary act
- The possibility of being liable for the actus reus of an offence in this way seems
wrong here because it is open to abuse by the authorities - the voluntary act has been
diluted in this case
- When you find yourself in a ‘state of affairs’ you can be liable for this even though
you were not voluntarily acting
Offences of Possession – Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 s.5(2)
- There is no explicit requirement for an act or omission by D
- Take section 5, subsection 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 – this provision makes
it an offence for D to have a controlled drug in her possession
- Just ‘possessing’ something is no positive act but it is just something in your pocket –
the action of putting something in your pocket is voluntary – this is not really a
voluntary act because you are not voluntarily acting by having it in your pocket
- These offences of possessions seem to be again diluting the requirement for a
voluntary act and the actus reus of the event is having a controlled drug in your
possession – its not putting it in your pocket its just having it in your possession
Actus Reus Voluntary Acts -
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” - an act does not make someone guilty unless the
mind is also guilty
- Criminal law is concerned with conduct and act or omission to act
Actus Reus = ‘Guilty Act’
Mens Rea = ‘Guilty Mind’
- A criminal offence contains two elements – the defendents guilty act (actus reus) and
the defendents guilty mind (mens rea)
- An exception to this is offences of strict liability which do not require a mens rea
element – strict liability offences are generally minor offences such as traffic offences
eg. Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence
- Even if the person is unaware that they are doing something wrong eg. Driving
without insurance without realising that their insurance company has cancelled their
contract – they are still liable
- Driving without insurance is the guilty act = Actus Reus
- Actus reus element is also called the external element because it is the physical part of
the offence
- Mens rea element is also called the internal element of the offence because it is about
what is going on inside the defendant's mind
- These external and internal elements respectively provide the framework for
determining D’s criminal liability
- However, the determination of criminal liability is not complete until defences are
considered – so even if D has both the actus reus and the mens rea elements for the
crime there are some circumstances where the criminal law considers that D is not
liable anyway eg. If I act in self defence I might have the actus reus (I might cause
injury to my attacker) and I will also have the mens rea (I intended to cause injury to
my attacker) - yet if I meet the requirements for self defence I will not be liable
No actus reus = no crime (even if they have a mens rea)
Conduct = act or omission to act
(Instead of saying ‘guilty act’ use ‘guilty conduct’
- There are offences where the conduct needs to take place in specific circumstances –
these are called conduct crimes
- Not all conduct crimes have to have a result eg. Attempted rape, perjury (the
intentional act of swearing a false oath)
, - Result Crimes = must be an act or an omission taking place in proscribed
circumstances and causing a proscribed result eg. Murder, manslaughter, causing
actual bodily harm or criminal damage
Voluntary Act = a positive willed act (has the person moved their arms, legs and limbs) - the
external movement of D’s body
Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
- In this case Lord Denning stated that the requirement that it should be a voluntary act
is essential in every criminal case
Person D will not be liable for a voluntary act if they are acting as an automation –
automatism is where someone is not in control of their actions
Hill V Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277
- In this case, the court cited examples of when D might be suffering from automatism
eg. D experiencing a bang on the head (unconsciousness) - D would not be in control
of her limbs in that situation – the movement of D’s limbs is involuntary – it did not
flow by an exercise by D of her free will – no voluntary act there
Winzar V Chief Constable of Kent (1983) Unreported
- D was taken to a hospital on a stretcher and was found to be drunk and was told to
leave the hospital.
- When he was seen slumped on the corridor floor, the police were called and the police
took D to their police car outside on the highway – they then promptly charged him
with being found drunk on the highway
- Being found drunk is a state of affairs – it is not a voluntary act
- The possibility of being liable for the actus reus of an offence in this way seems
wrong here because it is open to abuse by the authorities - the voluntary act has been
diluted in this case
- When you find yourself in a ‘state of affairs’ you can be liable for this even though
you were not voluntarily acting
Offences of Possession – Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 s.5(2)
- There is no explicit requirement for an act or omission by D
- Take section 5, subsection 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 – this provision makes
it an offence for D to have a controlled drug in her possession
- Just ‘possessing’ something is no positive act but it is just something in your pocket –
the action of putting something in your pocket is voluntary – this is not really a
voluntary act because you are not voluntarily acting by having it in your pocket
- These offences of possessions seem to be again diluting the requirement for a
voluntary act and the actus reus of the event is having a controlled drug in your
possession – its not putting it in your pocket its just having it in your possession
