Actus reus, mens rea and strict liability

• Robbery involves theft by force or threat, while burglary involves breaking into a building with intent to steal.
• Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.
• Dishonesty is an essential element of theft, but it does not require actual dishonest belief.
• Dishonesty can be determined based on objective factors such as whether an honest person would have acted similarly in the circumstances.
• A defendant's belief that they had permission to take something does not negate their dishonesty if there was no actual permission given.
• In R v Ghosh (1982), Lord Lane stated that dishonesty must be judged objectively based on what would have been regarded as dishonest by ordinary decent people.
• crime?

  Crime – conduct which is forbidden by the state and for which there is a punishment.
• actus reus?

  -the gulity act, can be act, an omission and state of affairs
• Actus reus: The act?

  -must be voluntary

  -HILL V BAXTER (1958) failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with another car. Held: The actus reus must be voluntary. Here the evidence presented by D was not sufficient to establish that D's act was not voluntary in nature. He was convicted.
• Actus reus: omissions?

  -failure to act

  -does not form the Actus reus of an offence- unless D has a duty to act
• Omission cases? duty as a parent/assuming a duty to V?


  -R v gibbons v proctor 1918-Held: failed to deed child and she died. Gibbins (father) and Proctor (who had care of V and received money to buy food for for her) had a duty to act to ensure she ate as herparents. Their omission to do so formed the actus reus of murder

  -R v stone and Dobinson (1977)-Ds were of low intelligence. sister live with them. she fell ill, they failed to get help. V died

  Held: The Defendants had assumed a duty to act when they started looking after V. Their omission to get help formed the actus reus of manslaughter.
• Omissions case: a public duty??

  R v dytham (1979)-a police officer failed to stop a fight. V died.

  held -As D had a public duty to act, his omission to intervene formed the actus reus of misconduct in a public office.
• Omissions: Setting in motion a chain of events case

  R v Miller (1983)-D fell asleep with cigarette. Mattress caught fire, did not put it out and went to sleep.

  held- As D had created a dangerous situation or set in motion a chain of events he had a duty to act to put the fire out. His omission to do so formed the actus reus of arson.
• omissions: contractual duty case????????

  R v pittwood (1902)-worker failed to close gate, train driver died.

  held: As D had a contractual duty to act his omission to close the gate formed the actus reus of manslaughter.
• Omissions: statutory duty? case

  -failing to stop at the scene of a road traffic accident is an offence under s170 Road Traffic Act 1988. Greener v DPP- statutory duty under dangerous dogs act, failed to retain dog
• omissions: state of affairs?? cases

  The actus reus of an offence can be formed by the existence of a certain set of circumstances.

  For example, being in charge of a vehicle on the public highway whilst intoxicated is an offence under s4(2) Road Traffic Act 1988.

  -Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent-He was convicted of being 'found drunk' in a highway under s12 Licensing Act 1872.

  -r v Larsonneur- Brought back to uk against her will. convicted under the Aliens Order 1920 of being found in the UK having been refused entry.
• The contemporary rule??

  For there to be criminal liability, the actus reus and mens rea of the offence must coincide / occur at the same time.

  -Fagan v MPC - continuing Actus Reus-Held: held the car on police’s foot. Then refused to move.

  held- the actus reus continued until the mens rea arrived, so there was coincidence and D was guilty.-R v Thabo meli: held : as long as the actus reus and mens rea both occur during a series of events, they coincide and D is criminally liable.
• R v thabo meli (1954)?


  Ds attacked V in a hut, intending to kill him. V was knocked unconscious. Thinking he was dead, Ds rolled his body over a low cliff, hoping to make it look like an accident. V then died of exposure.

  -Ds argued that there was no coincidence, because the mens rea was present only when attacking V.

  The actus reus - the unlawful killing of V - came when he was rolled over the cliff, and at that point Ds no longer had the mens rea of murder as they thought V was already dead.
• Men’s rea?

  -intention

  -subjective recklessness
• Subjective recklessness? Case examples

  -This is where D realises that there is an unjustifiable risk of the prohibited outcome occurring, and D runs the risk.

  -R v Cunningham (1957)- tried to rob gas meter, Ripped it out of wall, causes gas leak, woman next door died. Held-D was not reckless as he did not realise the risk of the outcome occurring.

  -R v R and G (2003)-2 boys went camping. entered back yard of shop, lit a fire under a bin, left. fire spread to shop, caused a mils £' worth of damage. Held: In order to be reckless, D must realise the risk of the prohibited outcome occurring.
• What is Intention?

  purpose- objective or goal that drives our actions

  -can be direct or oblique
• Direct intention? cases?

  • D has the Desire to bring about the prohibited outcome.
  • R v mohan (1976)-D signalled to stop his car by police officer. he accelerated at him. Held: D had intention as it was his aim or desire to bring about the prohibited consequence.
• Oblique intention? Cases

  R v woolin (1998)-D threw three-month old baby with force towards a pram. The baby died. D did not desire this outcome.

  police. Held: D had intention as the prohibited consequence was a virtual certainty and he must have realised this.
• what does virtual certainty mean. And Give cases?

  R v Nedrick (1986)-D had grudge against woman. he poured oil in her letterbox, set it on fire, baby died instead.

  held- objectively there had to be virtual certainty and jury must infer this from evidence.

  -R v woolin (1998)

  -def- very high degree of probability or likehood
• Gross negligence in mes rea??

  negligence can form the mens rea of a crime. For example, where D's negligence is so bad as to be gross and results in death, D may be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.

  R v Adomako (1994)-During an operation, an anaesthetist failed to notice that the tube allowing V to breathe had become disconnected. He admitted negligence. Lord Mackay: the test for gross negligence is

  "whether the extent to which D's conduct departed from the proper standard of care involving a risk of death was such that it should be judged criminal".
• Knowledge- aware of an event or know that your property is being used for a crime. You can be guilty of an offence

  case - sweet v parsley(1969)- D owned property which was being used by drug dealers. D did not know This therefor did not have relevant knowledge.

  held - not guilty
• Transferred malice? cases

  When the intent to harm one individual inadvertently results in harm to a different individual.

  R v Latimer (1886) -D tried to hit msn with his belt. Blow glanced off and hit women. Held- His mens rea was transferred from the intended V to the actual V, and he was guilty of wounding under s20 OAPA.R v Mitchell (1983) D tried to jump queue at post office, hit a man who refuse, man fell against an 89 year old lady, broke her leg and died. held: D was liable for manslaughter. His mens rea in respect of the intended V was transferred to the actual V
• transferred malice in cases of property damage?

  R v pembliton (1874)-D threw a stone at people who were fighting. He missed and broke a window.

  Held: D's mens rea in respect of the people could not be transferred to property as this was a different type of crime. His conviction for criminal damage was quashed.

  -shows men’s Rea does not transfer into property crimes
• Criticisms of intention??

  -There has been much confusion over whether oblique intent is a type of intention, or whether it just describes a state of mind from which the jury can find intention if it wishes.

  -academics (e.g. Horder, 1997) argue that recklessness should be judged objectively, as Defendants should be liable for even the unforeseen results of their conduct.
• Draft Criminal Code, the Law Commission defined recklessness as?


  A person acts recklessly if he is aware of the risk of the prohibited outcome and it is unreasonable to take that risk.
• In their review of homicide, the Law Commission defined intention

  as??

  1. A person should be taken to intend a result if he or she acts in order to bring it about; or
  2. If D thought the result was a virtually certain consequence of his or her action.
• Define Causation? What r the 2 types


  Described as a chain. It is the process of a leading to an event.

  -factual cause

  -legal cause
• what Is factual causation? Cases


  ’but for the action of X, would Y have occurred?’

  -R v pagett (1983)- D uses his kidnapped wife as a shield against gunshots, she died.

  -R v white (1910) - guilty of attempted murder. Held - BUT FOR whites action, his mother still would have died.
• Legal causation?

  • de minimus rule- the contact must be more than a minimal a cause, not the Most substantial
  • thin skull rule - take your victim as you find them
  • R v Kinsey (1996) - high speed chase resulted in an accident and 1 dead. There was more than a minimal involvement from the defendant. Guilty.
  • R v blaue (1975) - stabbed, refused blood transfusion, she died. D was responsible for murder even though v could have saved her life ‘vulnerabilit’ ethical or physical didn’t matter.
• R v Benge (1846)


  • Railway worker took up section of line
  • Misread timetable, line still taken up when train arrived
  • Workers displayed warning flags incorrectly
  • Driver not keeping proper look-out
  • Fatal accident resulted
• If D's conduct substantially caused the accident


  The presence of other causes was irrelevant
• R v Hennigan (1971)


  • D convicted of dangerous driving
  • Judge told jury they could convict if D's conduct was a substantial cause of death lord parker stated this was not correct
• The Supreme Court in R v Hughes [2013]


  Confirmed that D's conduct only needed to be more than a minimal cause of the outcome
• does medical attention (MA) break the chain of causation?


  R v smith 1959- 2 sword men fighting, one injured, taken by medics, medical treatment aggravated the wound, v died. HELD- NO BREAK even though the medical treatment was bad, the operating cause was still the original injury. R v Jordan 1956 -v stabbed but healing well in hospital. v given antibiotics, allergic reaction, v died. HELD : BREAK the original injury not the operating factor. MA will not break chain unless its palpably wrong or extraordinary and unusual
• victims own actions? cases?? D should be able to foresee V running away, even if this makes an injury worse or fatal D is still liable. What can break the chain is an unforeseen reaction R v Roberts (1971) - D sexual advances cause V to jump out of moving car. Attempting to escape is foreseeable. NO BREAK R v Williams (1992) - V jumped from car and got injured. it was an attempt to steal a wallet. courts considered it an overreaction. Attempting to escape is foreaseable but not the scale of jumping. BREAK