The elements of crime
Actus Reus (guilty act) essentially looks at the external elements of a criminal offence. So
any requirements within the definition of a crime which relates to something external from
the mind of the defendant.
Mens rea (guilty mind) the internal or mental requirement of an offence
For criminal liability we need a combination on those two depending on the exact definition of
an offence and then the absence of a defence.
Actus Reus
Conduct element: The physical actions or omissions required for an offence
Circumstance element: the surrounding facts required for the offence. (eg absence of
consent-rape) (or eg in property , the circumstance element is that the damaged property
belongs to another because if I damage my property then there is no criminal offence)
Result element: the outcomes of D’s acts that are required for the offence
(Eg Murder- result element: death. Circumstance element: victim is a person)
Not all crimes will require all 3 elements and we have distinction on those called conduct
crimes, and result crimes.
Conduct crime is so called because it does not require any results to happen (just -conduct
element, -circumstance element)
eg driving drunk : conduct element driving, circumstance element alcohol level in blood
above prescribed.
Result crimes: -conduct element, -circumstance element, -result element
With murder and also most result crimes you will see that the act/conduct element is not
specific. Its any action or any omission which leads to the result. Difference between conduct
crimes which are focusing to the detail of the conduct .
OMISSIONS
Larry hates Harry and whilst they are out on their usual Sunday walk, Larry pushes Harry
onto a railway track intending him to be hit by the next train, which is due any minute. Larry
runs away. Harry is injured by the fall and cannot get up. He calls for help.
-Gary, who is employed to operate the level-crossing, hears Harry calling for help, but as he’s
in the mile of Sunday lunch, he decided not to get up and investigate.
-Jerry, the local police-officer is also in the vicinity doing his rounds. He also hears Harry’s
cries but he doesn’t want a crisis to delay him from getting home in time for the football.
-Sally, Harry’s mum is walking by the railway truck with her new boyfriend, Barry, when they
hear Harry calling for help. Sally realises Harrys in trouble but decides not to go and help
because she thinks Harry is old enough to stand on his own two feet.
-Barry, who has never met Harry before, considers running to help but decides he doesn’t
want to ruin his new shoes by getting them muddy.
Shortly after, a train comes by and kills Harry
Evans 2009
, In relation to Larry, Larry has not omitted an omission he has actively caused the death to
come about. He pushed him and is from that pushing that later Harry is dead. And when we
are looking on problem questions from potential liabilities we should always start by looking
for actions. Actions are much easier because nothing else is required beyond that within the
conduct element of a crime. An action will always be sufficient as long as it is causally
connected the way it needs to be to the result. However the others hadn’t done a positive
action which led to the outcome of death and so we can’t base their liability, if they have
liability at all, on their actions. So therefore our only options in relation to the other
characters would be in relation to their omissions to do anything, on their failure to go and
assistor call for help has actually contributed to the death coming about.
So how the criminal law is dealing with it?
The default position is that there is no liability for an omission. And the arguments for that
position are first of all autonomy. That yes we accept there might be some limited culpability
and in some of those examples it seems particularly strong but actually the criminal law
shouldn’t be involved in omissions liability. Omissions liability is too restrictive to the
autonomy of individuals. So although it might sometimes not seem morally right, action
based liability is more based on autonomy while omissions based liability will force me to do
things I might not otherwise want to.
There is also an issue in terms of practical difficulty. So in an event of someone who is
drowning and there is a group of people who see him but don’t go for help, although we
might say that they are morally culpable they are equally culpable such that they deserve
criminalization or such that we spent the resources on criminalizing them.
But the law says that although our starting point will be that there is no liability for an
omission within English criminal law there is a possibility that a failure to act may result in the
imposition of criminal liability in two situations.
And that is where there is a recognised offence ie the type of offence that has been
committed is recognised in law as one being capable of being committed by an omission,
secondly that there is a recognised duty to act, and lastly that there is a breach of that duty
to act.
So if the only way you can find liability is by an omission then you have to demonstrate these
extra layers in order to find potential liability. Additionally to the omission you have to
demonstrate a duty to act and a breach of duty to act.
Omissions liability always requires an additional circumstance requirement – a duty to act
Duties can include
-Common law or statutory duty
-Contractual duty
-Relationship based duty
-Assumption of care duty
-Dangerous situation duty
In the problem scenario who was in breach of statutory duty? =The police officer.
DYTHAM A police officer was on duty outside a night club in full uniform and he saw one man
kicked out from the bar by the bouncers and then the bouncer starting beating him up and
eventually killed him. The police officer simply watch whilst this attack happened and didn’t
intervene in any way or call for backup or do anything to try and help the man that was being
killed. In fact he was heard to say to somebody next to him that he was of duty soon and he
didn’t want the hassle. He was charged with an offence of misconduct whilst acting as an
Actus Reus (guilty act) essentially looks at the external elements of a criminal offence. So
any requirements within the definition of a crime which relates to something external from
the mind of the defendant.
Mens rea (guilty mind) the internal or mental requirement of an offence
For criminal liability we need a combination on those two depending on the exact definition of
an offence and then the absence of a defence.
Actus Reus
Conduct element: The physical actions or omissions required for an offence
Circumstance element: the surrounding facts required for the offence. (eg absence of
consent-rape) (or eg in property , the circumstance element is that the damaged property
belongs to another because if I damage my property then there is no criminal offence)
Result element: the outcomes of D’s acts that are required for the offence
(Eg Murder- result element: death. Circumstance element: victim is a person)
Not all crimes will require all 3 elements and we have distinction on those called conduct
crimes, and result crimes.
Conduct crime is so called because it does not require any results to happen (just -conduct
element, -circumstance element)
eg driving drunk : conduct element driving, circumstance element alcohol level in blood
above prescribed.
Result crimes: -conduct element, -circumstance element, -result element
With murder and also most result crimes you will see that the act/conduct element is not
specific. Its any action or any omission which leads to the result. Difference between conduct
crimes which are focusing to the detail of the conduct .
OMISSIONS
Larry hates Harry and whilst they are out on their usual Sunday walk, Larry pushes Harry
onto a railway track intending him to be hit by the next train, which is due any minute. Larry
runs away. Harry is injured by the fall and cannot get up. He calls for help.
-Gary, who is employed to operate the level-crossing, hears Harry calling for help, but as he’s
in the mile of Sunday lunch, he decided not to get up and investigate.
-Jerry, the local police-officer is also in the vicinity doing his rounds. He also hears Harry’s
cries but he doesn’t want a crisis to delay him from getting home in time for the football.
-Sally, Harry’s mum is walking by the railway truck with her new boyfriend, Barry, when they
hear Harry calling for help. Sally realises Harrys in trouble but decides not to go and help
because she thinks Harry is old enough to stand on his own two feet.
-Barry, who has never met Harry before, considers running to help but decides he doesn’t
want to ruin his new shoes by getting them muddy.
Shortly after, a train comes by and kills Harry
Evans 2009
, In relation to Larry, Larry has not omitted an omission he has actively caused the death to
come about. He pushed him and is from that pushing that later Harry is dead. And when we
are looking on problem questions from potential liabilities we should always start by looking
for actions. Actions are much easier because nothing else is required beyond that within the
conduct element of a crime. An action will always be sufficient as long as it is causally
connected the way it needs to be to the result. However the others hadn’t done a positive
action which led to the outcome of death and so we can’t base their liability, if they have
liability at all, on their actions. So therefore our only options in relation to the other
characters would be in relation to their omissions to do anything, on their failure to go and
assistor call for help has actually contributed to the death coming about.
So how the criminal law is dealing with it?
The default position is that there is no liability for an omission. And the arguments for that
position are first of all autonomy. That yes we accept there might be some limited culpability
and in some of those examples it seems particularly strong but actually the criminal law
shouldn’t be involved in omissions liability. Omissions liability is too restrictive to the
autonomy of individuals. So although it might sometimes not seem morally right, action
based liability is more based on autonomy while omissions based liability will force me to do
things I might not otherwise want to.
There is also an issue in terms of practical difficulty. So in an event of someone who is
drowning and there is a group of people who see him but don’t go for help, although we
might say that they are morally culpable they are equally culpable such that they deserve
criminalization or such that we spent the resources on criminalizing them.
But the law says that although our starting point will be that there is no liability for an
omission within English criminal law there is a possibility that a failure to act may result in the
imposition of criminal liability in two situations.
And that is where there is a recognised offence ie the type of offence that has been
committed is recognised in law as one being capable of being committed by an omission,
secondly that there is a recognised duty to act, and lastly that there is a breach of that duty
to act.
So if the only way you can find liability is by an omission then you have to demonstrate these
extra layers in order to find potential liability. Additionally to the omission you have to
demonstrate a duty to act and a breach of duty to act.
Omissions liability always requires an additional circumstance requirement – a duty to act
Duties can include
-Common law or statutory duty
-Contractual duty
-Relationship based duty
-Assumption of care duty
-Dangerous situation duty
In the problem scenario who was in breach of statutory duty? =The police officer.
DYTHAM A police officer was on duty outside a night club in full uniform and he saw one man
kicked out from the bar by the bouncers and then the bouncer starting beating him up and
eventually killed him. The police officer simply watch whilst this attack happened and didn’t
intervene in any way or call for backup or do anything to try and help the man that was being
killed. In fact he was heard to say to somebody next to him that he was of duty soon and he
didn’t want the hassle. He was charged with an offence of misconduct whilst acting as an
