Topic 2 - Elements of a Crime I (Actus Reus Part 1)
- Common in essay questions - whether the law is satisfactory in this area
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
- A conviction of a crime requires proof of both a criminal act and criminal intent
- Actus reus (criminal act) + mens rea (criminal intent)
- An act itself is not a crime unless it is convicted with a guilty mind
Actus Reus
- The voluntary act of the defendant (the physical action like stabbing someone)
- An act, omission, or event occurring in certain circumstance resulting in a defined
consequence
- It’s part of the definition of an offense that does not relate to the defendant’s state
of mind
- There are some special considerations:
1) If the act appears to be involuntary
2) If there has been no positive act, merely a failure to act (an omission)
- To understand what is actus reus and what is mens rea in an offense, you look at the
definition and whether the prosecuted fulfills it
- Eg: Theft
- Definition under Theft Act 1968
- A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving
the other of it
- Actus reus: appropriating property belong to another
- Mens rea: dishonesty and with the intention of permanently depriving the
other of it
Voluntary Nature of Actus Reus: Involuntary Acts
- General rule: A defendant would not be guilty of a crime if he had acted involuntary
- The prosecution must prove that the defendant had acted voluntary
- Caused by:
- External physical force
- Automatism: an act which is done by a reflex action without any control or if the
person is not conscious of what he is doing such as by concussion or
sleepwalking
- Loss of consciousness
- Hill v Baxter (1958)
- D was driving a car and claimed to be unconscious due to illness
- He was convicted because the court believed he could still manage the car
- The court gave a key principle that in order to be guilty of a criminal offense, the
actus reus must be voluntary
, - Examples if the driver of the vehicle was not driving voluntarily and therefore
would not be guilty of a criminal offense:
- Stung by a swarm of bees
- Struck on the head by a stone
- Had a heart attack while driving
Automatism
- A person is not guilty of an an offense if the act is done by a reflex action without any
control or if the person is not conscious of what he is doing such as by concussion or
sleepwalking
- Must be a total loss of consciousness (high threshold to prove)
- Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing
what is either wrong or contrary to law
- Three elements:
a) There was a total destruction of voluntary control
b) The condition was caused by an external factor
c) The defendant was not responsible for his state of mind
Automatism - Types
1) Insane automatism: the accused is not guilty due to insanity, but may not be acquitted
2) Non-insane automatism: the accused will be fully acquitted - free of being guilty
- Which type it is, is determined by:
- Whether it is caused by an internal or external factor
1) Internal cause: insane automatism - disease of the mind
- Bratty (1963)
- Strangling someone but was under epilepsy
- Burgess (1991)
- Beat up somebody while sleepwalking
- Rabey (1980)
- Took a stone from a university and hit a girl she rejected
him with and tried to raise defense of automatism
- The rejection wasn’t considered external and it was his
psychological issues
- Defense still rejected regardless
- R v M’Naghten
- Criteria: the accused must prove that at the time of
committing the act he was laboring under a defect of
reason, from a disease of the mind, not knowing his
actions and not knowing that his actions were
wrong
- Victim must be unconscious during his act and not know
of the legal outcome of his actions.
- Common in essay questions - whether the law is satisfactory in this area
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
- A conviction of a crime requires proof of both a criminal act and criminal intent
- Actus reus (criminal act) + mens rea (criminal intent)
- An act itself is not a crime unless it is convicted with a guilty mind
Actus Reus
- The voluntary act of the defendant (the physical action like stabbing someone)
- An act, omission, or event occurring in certain circumstance resulting in a defined
consequence
- It’s part of the definition of an offense that does not relate to the defendant’s state
of mind
- There are some special considerations:
1) If the act appears to be involuntary
2) If there has been no positive act, merely a failure to act (an omission)
- To understand what is actus reus and what is mens rea in an offense, you look at the
definition and whether the prosecuted fulfills it
- Eg: Theft
- Definition under Theft Act 1968
- A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving
the other of it
- Actus reus: appropriating property belong to another
- Mens rea: dishonesty and with the intention of permanently depriving the
other of it
Voluntary Nature of Actus Reus: Involuntary Acts
- General rule: A defendant would not be guilty of a crime if he had acted involuntary
- The prosecution must prove that the defendant had acted voluntary
- Caused by:
- External physical force
- Automatism: an act which is done by a reflex action without any control or if the
person is not conscious of what he is doing such as by concussion or
sleepwalking
- Loss of consciousness
- Hill v Baxter (1958)
- D was driving a car and claimed to be unconscious due to illness
- He was convicted because the court believed he could still manage the car
- The court gave a key principle that in order to be guilty of a criminal offense, the
actus reus must be voluntary
, - Examples if the driver of the vehicle was not driving voluntarily and therefore
would not be guilty of a criminal offense:
- Stung by a swarm of bees
- Struck on the head by a stone
- Had a heart attack while driving
Automatism
- A person is not guilty of an an offense if the act is done by a reflex action without any
control or if the person is not conscious of what he is doing such as by concussion or
sleepwalking
- Must be a total loss of consciousness (high threshold to prove)
- Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing
what is either wrong or contrary to law
- Three elements:
a) There was a total destruction of voluntary control
b) The condition was caused by an external factor
c) The defendant was not responsible for his state of mind
Automatism - Types
1) Insane automatism: the accused is not guilty due to insanity, but may not be acquitted
2) Non-insane automatism: the accused will be fully acquitted - free of being guilty
- Which type it is, is determined by:
- Whether it is caused by an internal or external factor
1) Internal cause: insane automatism - disease of the mind
- Bratty (1963)
- Strangling someone but was under epilepsy
- Burgess (1991)
- Beat up somebody while sleepwalking
- Rabey (1980)
- Took a stone from a university and hit a girl she rejected
him with and tried to raise defense of automatism
- The rejection wasn’t considered external and it was his
psychological issues
- Defense still rejected regardless
- R v M’Naghten
- Criteria: the accused must prove that at the time of
committing the act he was laboring under a defect of
reason, from a disease of the mind, not knowing his
actions and not knowing that his actions were
wrong
- Victim must be unconscious during his act and not know
of the legal outcome of his actions.
