Criminal law
- Actus reus = physical element
- Men’s rea = mental element
Actus reus :
1) Must be present r v Deller = defendant sold car which could’ve had left over
payments
2) Must be voluntary hill v Baxter = car crash and was in a haze
3) State of affairs / conduct
- Conduct crimes = no need for consequence specific result is needed e.g., gbh
- Consequence crimes = for some crimes the prohibited conduct must also result in
consequence e.g., actual body harm
- State of affairs = being in the wrong place at the wrong time a dodgy have an
offensive weapon in a public space
Voluntary nature :
- The act or the omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant if the
defendant has no control over his actions, then he has not committed the actus reus
- Hill v Baxter the car accident was not voluntary as he lost control
- R v Mitchell = the push his way into a queue and punched an old man causing him to
stagger behind into an old woman who was knocked over and injured and died a few
letter of her injuries = part fault of the defendant
Involuntariness :
- There are some rare instances in which the defendant has been convicted even
though he did not act voluntary
Omissions of actus reus :
- The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
- Good Samaritan law
- R v miller = not having a good Samaritan it’s not illegal to not help
1) R v Gibbons/proctor = fail to feed child ; special relationship
2) R v stone/ Dobinson = sister owed care ; assumed responsibility
3) R v miller = failed to stop fire ; supervening fault
4) Statutory duty = protocol e.g., car crash exchange details
5) R v pittwood = not shut train gates ; contractual duty
6) R v dytham = didn’t intervene as po ; official position e.g., police officer
The contemporaneity rule :
, - Actus reus and men’s rea must co-exists
- Fagan v mpc = continuing act continue to keep court on police officers foot causing
assault
- Thabo Meli v r privy council = defendant attacked men and thought he died threw off
a cliff = Committed men’s rea for murder
2 stage test :
1st limb = the factual case “but for”
R v white = intention was to kill mother but she suffered heart attack
R v Paggett = used gf as shield guilty to use her to not get shot
2nd limb = legal cause
R v robots = girl jumped car to avoid rape
R v Williams = hitchhikers died from stealing wallet
- Novus actus interviews = new intervening act
- R v blue = a women was stabbed and refused to have one because she was a
Jehovah’s Witness the defendant was convicted of manslaughter
- Chain of causation is broken by ; a third party , victims own act and natural but
unpredictable event
Men’s rea
- Two types intention and recklessness
- Only the defendant will know what they intended but in law the jury decided
whether the defendant intented the outcome
Direct intention :
- R v Mohan = when asked to stop he slowed then acceleration charged with
attempted murder
- Must be distinguished from the motive
- Specific intent of the action
- Aim to bring out the consequence
Indirect intention :
- Defendant argue they did not want the outcome
1) R v Moloney = playing with gun and accidently killed step dad
Wasn’t precise enough and many consequences are natural
2) R v Hancock and shank land = miners threw concrete killed driver
Was death/Injury a natural and probable consequence more likely it was intended
, 3) R v Nedrick = tried to burn house ended killing child
Virtual certainty = most likely to occur
4) R v woollin = threw a child and dd have intention / virtual certainty
Example :
Shoot someone = direct
To shoot someone and break window = indirect
The theory :
- Aim or desire to bring about a consequence is intention
The practice :
- Define intention must mention r v woolin
- Only if applies to murder
Recklessness : knows there’s a risk and takes it
- Foreseeable risk and defendant Is aware
R v Cunningham : tampered with gas meter and lead to gas going into neighbours house
His intention wasn’t to poison his neighbour
Malice – intention or recklessness
- Subjective test
- Asks what the defendant foresaw not the ordinary person
R v g &r – camp fire in bin fire spread to shop
Strict liability :
- Without men’s rea needing to be proven
- For one or more elements of the actus reus
Harrow London borough v shah :
Lottery ticket sold to a miner 16-year-old ; shop keeper did not know the buyer was u16
R v larsonneur : Irish police deported French to the up and convicted of being illegal alien
Winzar v chief constable : police took man from hospital to highway and charged him with
drunk in a public space
True crime :
- Actus reus = physical element
- Men’s rea = mental element
Actus reus :
1) Must be present r v Deller = defendant sold car which could’ve had left over
payments
2) Must be voluntary hill v Baxter = car crash and was in a haze
3) State of affairs / conduct
- Conduct crimes = no need for consequence specific result is needed e.g., gbh
- Consequence crimes = for some crimes the prohibited conduct must also result in
consequence e.g., actual body harm
- State of affairs = being in the wrong place at the wrong time a dodgy have an
offensive weapon in a public space
Voluntary nature :
- The act or the omission must be voluntary on the part of the defendant if the
defendant has no control over his actions, then he has not committed the actus reus
- Hill v Baxter the car accident was not voluntary as he lost control
- R v Mitchell = the push his way into a queue and punched an old man causing him to
stagger behind into an old woman who was knocked over and injured and died a few
letter of her injuries = part fault of the defendant
Involuntariness :
- There are some rare instances in which the defendant has been convicted even
though he did not act voluntary
Omissions of actus reus :
- The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence
- Good Samaritan law
- R v miller = not having a good Samaritan it’s not illegal to not help
1) R v Gibbons/proctor = fail to feed child ; special relationship
2) R v stone/ Dobinson = sister owed care ; assumed responsibility
3) R v miller = failed to stop fire ; supervening fault
4) Statutory duty = protocol e.g., car crash exchange details
5) R v pittwood = not shut train gates ; contractual duty
6) R v dytham = didn’t intervene as po ; official position e.g., police officer
The contemporaneity rule :
, - Actus reus and men’s rea must co-exists
- Fagan v mpc = continuing act continue to keep court on police officers foot causing
assault
- Thabo Meli v r privy council = defendant attacked men and thought he died threw off
a cliff = Committed men’s rea for murder
2 stage test :
1st limb = the factual case “but for”
R v white = intention was to kill mother but she suffered heart attack
R v Paggett = used gf as shield guilty to use her to not get shot
2nd limb = legal cause
R v robots = girl jumped car to avoid rape
R v Williams = hitchhikers died from stealing wallet
- Novus actus interviews = new intervening act
- R v blue = a women was stabbed and refused to have one because she was a
Jehovah’s Witness the defendant was convicted of manslaughter
- Chain of causation is broken by ; a third party , victims own act and natural but
unpredictable event
Men’s rea
- Two types intention and recklessness
- Only the defendant will know what they intended but in law the jury decided
whether the defendant intented the outcome
Direct intention :
- R v Mohan = when asked to stop he slowed then acceleration charged with
attempted murder
- Must be distinguished from the motive
- Specific intent of the action
- Aim to bring out the consequence
Indirect intention :
- Defendant argue they did not want the outcome
1) R v Moloney = playing with gun and accidently killed step dad
Wasn’t precise enough and many consequences are natural
2) R v Hancock and shank land = miners threw concrete killed driver
Was death/Injury a natural and probable consequence more likely it was intended
, 3) R v Nedrick = tried to burn house ended killing child
Virtual certainty = most likely to occur
4) R v woollin = threw a child and dd have intention / virtual certainty
Example :
Shoot someone = direct
To shoot someone and break window = indirect
The theory :
- Aim or desire to bring about a consequence is intention
The practice :
- Define intention must mention r v woolin
- Only if applies to murder
Recklessness : knows there’s a risk and takes it
- Foreseeable risk and defendant Is aware
R v Cunningham : tampered with gas meter and lead to gas going into neighbours house
His intention wasn’t to poison his neighbour
Malice – intention or recklessness
- Subjective test
- Asks what the defendant foresaw not the ordinary person
R v g &r – camp fire in bin fire spread to shop
Strict liability :
- Without men’s rea needing to be proven
- For one or more elements of the actus reus
Harrow London borough v shah :
Lottery ticket sold to a miner 16-year-old ; shop keeper did not know the buyer was u16
R v larsonneur : Irish police deported French to the up and convicted of being illegal alien
Winzar v chief constable : police took man from hospital to highway and charged him with
drunk in a public space
True crime :
