Actus Reus
This is the observable misconduct that constitutes a "external" aspect of a crime. It includes the wrongdoing itself, any contributing factors, and any subsequent criminal activity that may have occurred as a direct result. As a rule, the actus reus prompts the following sets of inquiries:
Inquiring minds want to know: "Who can kill?"
In what kinds of places is murder possible?
What potential victims are there?
Is there a deadline (the one-year/365-day regulation), if any?
How about the question, "Is it a crime?"
Mens Rea.
The "interior" or mental component of a crime. For an accusation to stick, it must be shown that the defendant acted criminally while possessed of the requisite mental state (the "actus reus") of the crime. That's why it need proof of dishonesty and intent to retain the item to convict somebody of stealing. For conviction if mens rea is an element, both must be established. In most cases, the essential questions are raised by the mens rea that must be resolved:
• What's more important: malice intent or responsibility for the mishap?
• Was there clear malice on the part of the accused (did they want to murder the victim)?
• Do we have evidence that the criminal intended to inflict the victim great physical injury (implied malice)?
Mens Rea.
The "interior" or mental component of a crime. For an accusation to stick, it must be shown that the defendant acted criminally while possessed of the requisite mental state (the "actus reus") of the crime. That's why it need proof of dishonesty and intent to retain the item to convict somebody of stealing. For conviction if mens rea is an element, both must be established. In most cases, the essential questions are raised by the mens rea that must be resolved:
• What's more important: malice intent or responsibility for the mishap?
• Was there clear malice on the part of the accused (did they want to murder the victim)?
• Do we have evidence that the criminal intended to inflict the victim great physical injury (implied malice)?
5. Example :
Murder
Find the MR.
D unlawfully causes the death of a person
under the Queen’s peace, with the intention to
kill or the intention to cause grievous ( very
serious) bodily harm.
6. Intention
• Direct Intent: D. intends/wants/seeks to
achieve the result of his/her conduct.
- A means to an end.
- Knows exactly what he/she is doing and
understands that the consequences of
his/hers actions will lead to the desired result
which D. purposefully wants.
• Oblique Intent: The result/consequences of
D’s actions are a virtual certainty AND D. has
foreseen them as virtually certain.
7. A closer look:
Direct
Intention
• Direct Intention Example:
Jane wants to kill her best friend Eve because
she found out Eve is her husband’s mistress.
Jane invites Eve over for dinner and suggests
that she stays for a sleep over. Eve agrees.
Whilst Eve is asleep Jane takes a kitchen knife
and stabs Eve in her sleep 5 times.
8. A means to
and end:
Direct
Intention
• Jane runs a multi million company, which
will declare bankruptcy if she does not
manage to pay a bank loan of £1,000,000.
She decides to kill her husband Ben to claim
his life insurance money and repay the bank
loan, so that her multi million company
survives. She waits for Ben to return home
and upon his arrival shoots him in the head.
9. Oblique
Intention: An
example
• Jane runs a multi million company, which
will declare bankruptcy if she does not
manage to pay a bank loan of £1,000,000.
She decides to plant a bomb on the
company’s private jet on which her husband
Ben is on to claim his life insurance money to
repay her loan. As expected the bomb
explodes and kills Ben, but also everybody
else on the plane (i.e. the pilot, flight
attendants, company employees).
10. A closer look:
Oblique
Intention
‘virtual certainty’ test: Woolin:
A 3-part test:
1. Result is a virtual certainty (objective limb)
2. D. foresees it as a virtual certainty
(subjective limb)
3. Jury finds an intention
11. Recklessness
• D. takes an unjustifiable risk
• D. foresees the consequences of his/her actions
(subjective following R v G).
• Would a reasonable person foresee such
consequences?
• The Journey of the Recklessness Test:
- Cunningham (subjective)
- Caldwell (objective)
- R v G (mostly subjective with an objective limb)
12. • V.IMP NOTE:
• Do NOT confuse types of MR – if a D. in a problem
scenario is reckless rather than having an intention
to commit the offence (i.e. a killing), then the
offence of murder CANNOT be satisfied (and we will
look at alternative offences relating to this in the
weeks to come).
• In other words, recklessness can NEVER be a MR for
murder!
• All offences have their own types of MR. Be
extremely careful in problem questions!
13. AR + MR
Must coincide
Must correspond
Continuous Acts (Fagan; Thabo Meli)
14. Negligence
• Duty of care
• Breach of duty
• Causation
• Result
• Will come back to it in gross negligence
manslaughter.
15. Transferred
Malice
• Jane wants to kill her best friend Eve because
she found out Eve is her husband’s mistress.
Jane invites Eve over for dinner and suggests
that she stays for a sleep over. Eve agrees. Both
fall asleep, but then Jane wakes up & takes a
kitchen knife intending to stab Eve. However,
she is feeling drowsy from just waking up and
stabs her husband Ben instead. (R v Latimer)
• What if we have the same facts & circumstances
but Jane decides to shoot Eve in her sleep but
misses and shoots at the window breaking it?
