The document discusses the legal maxim "actus non facit reum nisi men sit rea" which means "the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent." It explains that criminal liability requires both an act (actus reus) and a guilty state of mind (mens rea). Strict liability offenses are exceptions where mens rea is not required. The document analyzes the relationship between the maxim and strict liability, when strict liability offenses are justified, and opposing views on strict liability.

1. By
NORYUSRIZA BT ZULKIFLI
2013658956

2. "Actus non facit reum nisi men sit rea"
Explain the above legal maxim and discuss its
relationship with the doctrine of strict
liability.

3.  THE ACT ITSELF DOES NOT CONSTITUTE GUILT
UNLESS DONE WITH A GUILTY INTENT.
 THE MAXIM IS A CARDINAL DOCTRINE OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW.
 TO BE GUILTY OF A CRIME UNDER CRIMINAL
LAW REQUIRES 2 ELEMENTS:
 ACTUS REUS (A GUILTY ACT)
 MENS REA (A GUILTY STATE OF MIND)

4.  ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA MUST COINCIDE
TO CREATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
 THE ACT ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE A MAN
GUILTY UNLESS HIS INTENTION BE SO.
 THERE MUST BE A VICIOUS WILL OR CRIMINAL
INTENTION AS WELL AS AN UNLAWFUL ACT.
 WHERE ONE ENGAGED IN DOING A LAWFUL
ACT, WITHOUT ANY WRONGFUL INTENTION,
UNFORTUNATELY AND INADVERTENTLY KILLS
ANOTHER PERSON, THE HOMICIDE IS
EXCUSABLE.

5. PALANI GOUNDAN V EMPEROR (1919)
 THE APPELLANT STRUCK HIS WIFE ON THE HEAD
KNOCKING HER SENSELESS. BELIEVING HER DEAD,
HE HUNG HER FROM A BEAM BY MEANS OF A ROPE
TO FAKE SUICIDE. SHE DIED BY HANGING. IT WAS
HELD IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF GRIEVOUS
HURT:
‘THE INTENTION OF THE ACCUSED MUST BE
JUDGED NOT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ACTUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE
SUPPOSED TO BE THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT
FOLLOWS THAT A MAN IS NOT GUILTY OF
CULPABLE HOMICIDE IF HIS INTENTION IS
DIRECTED ONLY TO WHAT HE BELIEVES TO BE A
LIFELESS BODY.’

6. THABO MELI V R (1954)
 THE APPELANTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PREARRANGED
PLAN, TOOK THE VICTIM TO A HUT WHERE THEY GAVE HIM
BEER. WHEN HE WAS PARTIALLY INTOXICATED, THEY
STRUCK HIM ON THE HEAD. BELIEVING HIM TO BE DEAD,
THEY ROLLED HIS BODY DOWN A CLIFF TO MAKE HIS DEATH
LOOK LIKE AN ACCIDENT. HE DIED OF EXPOSURE WHEN
LYING UNCONSCIOUS AT THE FOOT OF THE CLIFF. THE
VICTIM DIED LATER OF EXPOSURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
CLIFF. THE PRIVY COUNCIL HELD:
‘IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIVIDE UP WHAT WAS REALLY ONE
SERIES OF ACT IN THIS WAY. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE
ACCUSED SET OUT TO DO ALL THESE ACTS IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE THEIR PLAN, AND AS PART OF THEIR PLAN…’
THEY WERE THEREFORE HELD GUILTY OF MURDER.

8.  AN OFFENCE OF STRICT LIABILITY IS ONE
WHERE THE ELEMENT OF MENS REA IS NOT
REQUIRED.
 IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION THAT PENAL STATUTES
SHOULD BE NARROWLY CONSTRUED IN
FAVOUR OF THE ACCUSED.
 THUS, IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT, A PENAL
STATUTE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO
REQUIRE MENS REA.

9.  THE RESPONDENTS WERE FOUND GUILTY OF
CARRYING BAGS OF RICE IN EXCESS OF THAT
ALLOWED BY THE PERMITS WHICH THEY
PRODUCED ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIMED THAT
THEY DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
NUMBER ALLOWED IN THE PERMITS. THE
OFFENCES COMMITTED WAS ONE OF THE
STRICT LIABILITY.

10.  PUBLIC NUISANCE
 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT

11.  WHERE THE OFFENCE IS NOT TRULY CRIMINAL IN
NATURE WHICH IS BROADLY REGARDED AS ONLY
‘QUASI CRIMINAL’.
 IF THE REQUIREMENT OF MENS REA IS CLEARLY OR
IMPLIEDLY OMITTED BY THE STATUTE ON THE
PARTICULAR OFFENCE.
 WHERE THE STATUTE IS CONCERNED WITH AN
ISSUE OF SOCIAL CONCERN SUCH AS LEGISLATION
INVOLVING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND
WELFARE, TRAFFIC REGULATION AND SO ON.

12.  EVEN WHERE THERE IS AN ISSUE OF SOCIAL
CONCERN INVOLVED, MENS REA WILL STILL BE
REQUIRED UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT
MAKING THE OFFENCE ONE OF STRICT
LIABILITY WILL HELP TO PREVENT THE
OFFENCE OCCURING.
 WHERE THE OFFENCE CARRIES A RELATIVELY
LIGHT PUNISHMENT, TYPICALLY A FINE.

13.  DATES FROM THE 19TH CENTURY.
 A GREAT DEAL OF LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED
WITH THE NEW AREAS OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
SAFETY AND WELFARE DURING THE INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION.
 THE TREND INCREASED IN THE 20TH CENTURY AS
AN INCREASINGLY COMPLEX SOCIETY DEMANDED
SOCIAL REGULATION.
 TRAFIC REGULATION, CONSUMER PROTECTION,
CONTROL OF IMPURE FOOD AND DRUGS,
PROTECTIONOF ENVIRONMENT – WERE PASSED
AND THESE REGULATIONS PAVED THE WAY FOR
STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCES.

14.  THE HUGE INCREASE IN THE STANDARD OF
PRODUCTS AND – IF MENS REA NEEDED TO BE
PROVED, THE LAW WOULD BE A DEAD LETTER.
 WOULD PROMOTE INCREASED CARE AND
EFFICIENCY.
 NO INJUSTICE IS CAUSED AS STRICT LIABILITY
OFFENCES ARE NOT ‘REAL CRIMES’. – THE
PENALTY ARE USUALLY LIGHT.
 IT WOULD BE TOO TIME-CONSUMING IF
BLAMEWORTHINESS HAD TO BE PROVED IN EVERY
CASE – ie: parking on double yellow line

15.  IT IS UNJUST AND MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE TO
BLAME THE BLAMELESS. A PERSON WHO DOES
NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING IS WRONG OR
WHO HAS TAKEN ALL REASONABLE
PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID HARM DOES NOT
DESERVE CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND
PUNISHMENT.
 IT IS UNTRUE THAT ALL OFFENCES OF STRICT
LIABILITY ARE MINOR OFFENCES CARRYING
LESSER PENALTIES.

16.  THERE APPEARS TO BE A LITTLE EVIDENCE
THAT THE IMPOSITION OF STRICT LIABILITY
MAKES PEOPLE MORE CAREFUL.

17.  THE MAXIM PRINCIPLE DOES NOT APPLIED TO
STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCES.
 STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCES ARE CREATURES
OF STATUTE AND ARE NECESSITATED BY
CONCERNS OF SOCIAL AND PUBLIC WELFARE.
 MENS REA IS ARRELEVANT AND THE MERE
PERFORMANCE THE ACT IS SUFFICIENT TO
CONSTITUTE THE OFFENCE.

18.  LEE CHONG FOOK, CHE AUDAH HASSAN; MIMI
SINTIA HAJI MOHD BAJURY, INTRIDUCTION TO
PRINCIPLES & LIABILITIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
(SECOND EDITION)
 NURAISYAH CHUA ABDULLAH; QUESTION AND
ANSWERS ON MALAYSIAN COURTS, STATUTES,
CASES, & CONTRACT, TORT AND CRIMINAL
LAW.
 RUSSELL HEATON, CRIMINAL LAW, 1998.

19. By
NORYUSRIZA BT ZULKIFLI
2013658956