General elements of liability

• Actus reus


  The guilty mind/the physical element
• Mens rea


  The guilty act/the mental element
• To be guilty of a crime there needs to be two elements present: actus reus and mens rea
• Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: 'The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind'
• Criminally liable


  When both actus reus and mens rea are established
• Actus reus


  The act itself
• Burden of proof in criminal law

  Beyond reasonable doubt
• Forms of actus reus

  • Voluntary action
  • Omission
  • State of affairs
• Mens rea


  The guilty mind
• To be guilty of a crime there needs to be an actus reus and mens rea
• The actus reus will be different for each crime
• Voluntary act


  The defendant must have committed the act or omission voluntarily
• Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind
• For each offence, the required mens rea will be different. To be guilty of an offence, the defendant must have at least the minimum mens rea required for the offence
• Involuntary acts


  • Reflex actions after being hit on the head with a hammer
  • Being stung by a swarm of bees
• Some crimes must produce a consequence for someone to be shown to have committed the actus reus
• Levels of mens rea from highest to lowest


  • Intention
  • Recklessness
  • Negligence
• Crimes that need a consequence

  • Murder
  • Theft
  • Assault
  • Robbery
• Intention (defined by R v Mohan 1975)


  A decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, [the prohibited consequence], no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not
• The defendant's motive is irrelevant when deciding intention
• Crimes that don't need a consequence

  • Being in possession of cannabis
  • Driving whilst over the prescribed limit
• 'Being' rather than 'doing' offences


  Crimes where the defendant has not committed an 'act' but has nonetheless been convicted
• Intention is always subjective


  In order to find that D had the intention, the court must believe that the particular defendant on trial desired the specific consequence of their action
• 'Being' rather than 'doing' offences


  • Being drunk and disorderly
  • Possession of an offensive weapon
• Types of intention


  • Direct intention
  • Indirect/oblique intention
• Failing to act


  Does not usually result in someone being found criminally liable in English law
• Direct intention


  The defendant wants a result and carries out an act to achieve it. Generally, this is easier to prove based on the circumstances of the crime
• Exceptions where failing to act can result in criminal liability

  • There is a duty created by statute
  • They have a contractual duty to act
  • There is a duty imposed by their official position
  • They have voluntarily accepted responsibility for another
  • They have created a dangerous situation
  • There is a special relationship
• Indirect/oblique intention


  The defendant doesn't necessarily want the result that occurs but realises that in acting as he does that there is a possibility that it will happen. The issue is whether the defendant foresaw the consequences of their actions
• Statutory duty to act

  • Failure to provide a breath specimen when required under the Road Traffic Act 1988
  • Failure to send a child to school under the Children And Young Person's Act 1933
• Oblique intention


  1. Evolved through case law

  2. Current direction comes from Nedrick (1986) as confirmed in Woolin (1998)

  3. Jury should be directed that they were not entitled to find the necessary intention for a conviction of murder unless they felt sure that death or serious bodily harm had been a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant had appreciated that such was the case
• Contractual duty to act

  • A lifeguard has a duty to act to save people's lives if they are in the swimming pool when he's on duty
• Oblique intention illustrated in Hyam v DPP (1975)

  • Hyam set fire to a newspaper and put it through the letterbox of a house belonging to Mrs Booth in order to frighten her. Mrs Booth's two children were in the house and died in the subsequent fire. Hyam had just wanted to frighten Mrs Booth and had no intention to hurt anyone. However, it is reasonably likely when you set fire to a house that someone will be hurt
• Duty imposed by official position

  • Pittwood, a railway employee, failed to shut the gates on the railway crossing and a person was killed
• This type of intention has been built up through case law largely based around S8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which states that a court or jury should not infer criminal intent from the natural and probable consequences of a person's actions
• Duty imposed by official position

  • An on-duty police officer saw a man being killed and did not intervene or get help
• Guidelines given in Moloney (1985)

  1. Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant's act?

  2. Did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his act?
• Duty from special relationship

  • Gibbins and Proctor, the father and his partner, failed to feed the father's 7 year old daughter who starved to death
• Duty from creating a dangerous situation

  • A squatter fell asleep smoking, woke to find his mattress on fire but did not put it out
• Moloney (1985)


  • Defendant and step-father were very drunk. They had a race to see who could load a shotgun the fastest. The defendant won. The step-father dared him to pull the trigger and he did, thus killing his step-father. He claimed he never intended to kill him. HoL held that foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention and not the intention itself