P3: Explain the elements of crime
M2: Analyse the elements in crime
P4: Explain the elements of specific non – fatal offences
M3: Compare and contrast the elements of two specific non – fatal offences
In this report, I will explain the different elements of crime and how they work when applied to
different cases. I will start by explaining the term Actus Reus. This means the physical element and
committing the act where as Mens Rea means the mentality side such as intention and recklessness.
I will also be explaining the five non-fatal offences as well as compare section 18, 20 and 47. The five
non – fatal offences that I will be exploring are; assault, battery, Actual bodily harm (ABH), Grievous
bodily harm (GBH) and GBH with intent.
Actus Reus translates to “to do an act” in Latin which means the occurrence of the criminal act or an
unlawful omission of an act. A requirement of a criminal act is that the defendant must perform the
act voluntarily, in other words they must control the act. As well as a threat is required or the use of
force and there must be a consequence of actual bodily harm, in other words some injury to the
victim. The voluntary nature of actus reus is illustrated in Hill v Baxter where the court gave
examples where a driver of a vehicle could not be said of doing the act of driving voluntary.
Involuntary acts and assaults of actus reus for example where a person hits someone due to a reflex
action. This example shows that the criminal law is concerned with fault on the part of the
defendant. There is also state of affair cases for example the Larsonneur case where the defendant
had been convicted of even though they did not act voluntarily. The defendant was ordered to leave
United Kingdom but she was deported back to United Kingdom. The defendant did not want to go
back and clearly did not act voluntarily. She was arrested as soon as she arrived in the UK.
There are omissions of actus reus and the meaning of an omission is that it cannot make a person
guilty of an offence. However, there are exceptions to the rule as in some cases there is possibility
for a failure to act to be the actus reus. In common law an omission is only sufficient for the actus
reus where there is a duty to act. There are five ways in which such a duty exists;
- A contractual duty: In Pitwood a railway crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates but a person
crossing the line was struck and killed by a train. The keeper was guilty of manslaughter.
- Relationship: A child’s father failed to feed his child that the child died from starvation this was the
case Gibbins and Proctor. The father and his mistress were guilty of murder.
- Voluntarily: In the case Stone and Dobinson, Stone’s elderly sister came to live with the
defendants but she became ill and unable to care for herself so she died. The defendants were
convicted of manslaughter through failing to care for her or summon help when she became
helpless.
- Official position: A police officer witnessed a violent attack but decided to ignore the situation by
driving away. The officer was guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform
his duty. This was the case Dytham.
- Defendant set motion a chain of events- In the case Miller a squatter accidently started a fire but
when he realised he left the room and slept in another room. The defendant did not try to put out
the fire or summon help therefore, he was guilty of arson.
The causation is the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined
with the mens rea to compromise the elements of guilt. The causation has to be proved in order to
consider whether criminal offence has taken place but it can be difficult to prove.
M2: Analyse the elements in crime
P4: Explain the elements of specific non – fatal offences
M3: Compare and contrast the elements of two specific non – fatal offences
In this report, I will explain the different elements of crime and how they work when applied to
different cases. I will start by explaining the term Actus Reus. This means the physical element and
committing the act where as Mens Rea means the mentality side such as intention and recklessness.
I will also be explaining the five non-fatal offences as well as compare section 18, 20 and 47. The five
non – fatal offences that I will be exploring are; assault, battery, Actual bodily harm (ABH), Grievous
bodily harm (GBH) and GBH with intent.
Actus Reus translates to “to do an act” in Latin which means the occurrence of the criminal act or an
unlawful omission of an act. A requirement of a criminal act is that the defendant must perform the
act voluntarily, in other words they must control the act. As well as a threat is required or the use of
force and there must be a consequence of actual bodily harm, in other words some injury to the
victim. The voluntary nature of actus reus is illustrated in Hill v Baxter where the court gave
examples where a driver of a vehicle could not be said of doing the act of driving voluntary.
Involuntary acts and assaults of actus reus for example where a person hits someone due to a reflex
action. This example shows that the criminal law is concerned with fault on the part of the
defendant. There is also state of affair cases for example the Larsonneur case where the defendant
had been convicted of even though they did not act voluntarily. The defendant was ordered to leave
United Kingdom but she was deported back to United Kingdom. The defendant did not want to go
back and clearly did not act voluntarily. She was arrested as soon as she arrived in the UK.
There are omissions of actus reus and the meaning of an omission is that it cannot make a person
guilty of an offence. However, there are exceptions to the rule as in some cases there is possibility
for a failure to act to be the actus reus. In common law an omission is only sufficient for the actus
reus where there is a duty to act. There are five ways in which such a duty exists;
- A contractual duty: In Pitwood a railway crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates but a person
crossing the line was struck and killed by a train. The keeper was guilty of manslaughter.
- Relationship: A child’s father failed to feed his child that the child died from starvation this was the
case Gibbins and Proctor. The father and his mistress were guilty of murder.
- Voluntarily: In the case Stone and Dobinson, Stone’s elderly sister came to live with the
defendants but she became ill and unable to care for herself so she died. The defendants were
convicted of manslaughter through failing to care for her or summon help when she became
helpless.
- Official position: A police officer witnessed a violent attack but decided to ignore the situation by
driving away. The officer was guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform
his duty. This was the case Dytham.
- Defendant set motion a chain of events- In the case Miller a squatter accidently started a fire but
when he realised he left the room and slept in another room. The defendant did not try to put out
the fire or summon help therefore, he was guilty of arson.
The causation is the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined
with the mens rea to compromise the elements of guilt. The causation has to be proved in order to
consider whether criminal offence has taken place but it can be difficult to prove.
