Coincidence in Law

• The coincidence of mens rea and actus reus.

  For a defendant to be found guilty of an offence they must have the correct mens rea and actus reus for the offence at the same time. As long as the Actus Reus and the mens rea are for the same offence.

  As long as the Actus reus and mens rea are both present at some point, the defendant can be found guilty.
• Coincidence is only loosely interpreted because in some cases a literal interpretation would lead to an injustice.
• Example B of coincidence

  The courts consider a chain of events to be a continuing actus reus, so if the mens rea and actus reus are both present at some point during this chain then there is liability.
• Example B of coincidence - R v Le Brun


  Case facts: A man and his wife had an argument. The defendant punched his wide and dragged her back to the house. She hit her head on the curb and died.

  Points of Law: The continuing actus reus chain of events is the punch which leads to the dragging of her hair and the knocking of her head, causing her death. However, the mens rea occurs when he starts dragging her back to the house to continue the argument and abuse inside. Giving him the mens rea for murder.
• Example B of coincidence - Thabo Meli v The Queen


  Case Facts: the defendants plotted to kill the victim. They beat the victim and believed they were dead (they weren't) and threw them over a cliff.

  Points of Law: Their mens rea came at the beginning as they had direct intention of murder however, their continuous actus reus was of the beating and then the throwing over the cliff where the victim died of exposure. They were a more than trivial cause of the victim's death, nothing broke the chain of events so it was a continuous actus reus.
• Example B of coincidence - R v Church


  Case Facts: the defendant and the victim are in the defendant's van with the aim of having sex. They get into a fight and the victim is knocked unconscious. The defendant believes her to be dead and throws her body in a river.

  Points of law: the continuous actus reus is when the defendant knocks her unconscious and throws her in a river. His only mens rea appears when he believes she's dead. If he hadn't believed she was dead he wouldn't have thrown her in a river, where she drowned.
• Coincidence Example A


  The events take place over a period of time, where the Actus Reus involves a continuing act and a later mens rea whilst the actus reas continues can be seen to coincide.

• Coincidence Example A - Kaitamaki v The Queen


  • the defendant was having consensual sex with the victim when the victim changed their mind and asked him to stop. The defendant ignored her and continued.
  • When the defendant ignores her, he now has the mens rea for rape. The actus reas is continuous and the mens rea and actus reus are both present at one given point, so by coincidence, he is guilty.