Elements Of Criminal Offence (actus And Mens Rea)

What is an Criminal Offence

. A Violation or Breach of Law, Custom, Rule.

Every criminal offence is made up of a number of elements, each of which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a defendant can be convicted of the offence with which he or she has been charged. A criminal offence might be a statutory offence, such as theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, or it might be an offence at common law. Most offences are now statutory but a few - including murder and manslaughter remain offences at common law.

The definition of every offence will be found either at common law or in a section of a statute. It is the definition of an offence which contains its elements.

Elements

Actus reus This is the 'external' element of a crime - i.e. Act, Ommission, conduct, circumstances and, in the case of a result crime, the consequences.

Mens rea This is the 'internal' element of a crime. It must be proved that at the time the defendant was responsible for the actus reus of the offence with which he is charged, he behaved with the state of mind relevant to that offence. Where the offence is one which requires proof of mens rea, both elements (i.e. actus reus and mens rea) must be proved in order to secure a conviction. Furthermore, it must be proved that the mens rea coincided with the actus reus. Note that even if a defendant committed the actus reus of the offence with the appropriate mens rea he or she may be able to raise a defence which would negate any criminal liability. The criminal law generally prohibits undesirable acts. Thus, proof of a crime requires proof of some act. Scholars label this the requirement of an actus reus or guilty act. Some crimes - particularly modern regulatory offenses - require no more, and they are known as strict liability offenses (E.g. Under the Road traffic Act 1988 it is a strict liability offence to drive a vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit). Nevertheless, because of the potentially severe consequences of criminal conviction, judges at common law also sought proof of an intent to do some bad thing, the mens rea or guilty mind. As to crimes of which both actus reus and mens rea are requirements, judges have concluded that the elements must be present at precisely the same moment and it is not enough that they occurred sequentially at different times.

Traditionally criminal offences are analysed by reference to the actus reus and the mens rea.

Proof of the ingredients of an offence The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt all of the elements of an offence with which a defendant is charged (see Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462). It follows therefore that, whether the offence is one of strict liability or one which requires proof of mens rea, if all of the elements of the actus reus cannot be proved the defendant cannot be criminally liable, however guilty his mind is.

Actus reus: automatism

Actus reus is Latin for "guilty act" and is the physical element of committing a crime. It may be accomplished by an action, by threat of action, or exceptionally, by anomission to act, which is a legal duty to act. For example, the act of A striking B might suffice, or a parent`s failure to give food to a young child also may provide the actus reus for a crime. Although the conduct element of the actus reus of an offence usually requires proof of a positive act on the part of the defendant some offences can be committed by virtue of an omission to act. Whether the prohibited conduct is an act or an omission, such conduct must be voluntary conduct on the part of the defendant. In the case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 Viscount Sankey ruled that, subject to limited exceptions, the burden was on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. One of the points he emphasised in relation to the defendant's conduct was that: 'The requirement that it should be a voluntary act is essential.in every criminal case.' Some years later, Lord Denning in the case of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1961] 3 All ER 523 HL said: No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context.means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking. It follows, therefore, that in order to attract criminal liability a defendant's conduct must be voluntary, that is, it must be a willed bodily movement (or lack of action where D is under a duty to act). For example if D does not control his car and it hits something causing damage, he will not be criminally liable if the reason he could not control the car was because, for example, he was being attacked by a swarm of bees. Brake failure through no fault of the defendant would equally give the driver no control over the situation (Smithand Hogan, p.51 and Burns v Bidder [1967] 2 QB 227). Similarly, if the same thing happened because he had a heart attack or epileptic fit, his conduct is involuntary. Where a defendant has no control over what he is doing he is said to be acting as an automaton.

Automatism is a plea by a defendant that his actions were not under the control of his conscious mind, i.e. that his bodily movements were unwilled and involuntary. Although generally pleaded as a 'defence' it will be dealt with here, as a successful plea of automatism will negate the conduct element of the actus reus of any offence with which the defendant is charged.

Limits to the Defence of Automatism There are, broadly, three ways in which the courts have limited the defence of automatism. These are: 1 Where the defendant exercised some control (sane automatism). 2 Where the condition which gave rise to the automatism can be brought within the ambit of the rules on insanity. 3 Where there was prior fault on the part of the defendant.

Sane Automatism Consider the case of Isitt [1978] CA. This case concerned a defendant who was involved in a road accident after which he returned to his van and drove off in a manner which was 'manifestly dangerous'. He was pursued by the police, finally escaping through some fields. There was evidence at his trial for dangerous driving that he appeared to have been drunk. He raised psychiatric evidence claiming that the original accident had caused 'an hysterical fugue' leading to memory loss: his subconscious mind had taken over so that he did not appreciate what he was doing when he was driving. He was convicted and his appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal which confirmed that although automatism was a defence to the offence of dangerous driving an 'hysterical fugue', rendering a driver's mind shut to moral inhibitions, was no defence. Just because his mind was not acting in top gear, that did not amount to automatism. The driving was purposive. He had some control.

Insane automatism Every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary is proved. M'Naghten rules (1843) 10 Cl & Fin at 210. Insanity is one of the exceptions to the rule in Woolmington. Therefore where the defendant raises a defence of insane automatism the burden of proof rests on him to prove on balance of probabilities (the civil standard) that, at the relevant time, he was suffering from insane automatism. case of Burgess [1991] In Burgess, the defendant, while sleepwalking, had injured the victim. It was held that sleepwalking would amount to insane automatism.

Prior fault Where the defendant's automatism arises through some prior fault of his own, then he may not be successful with his plea of automatism. For example, where a defendant falls asleep - as opposed to having suddenly lost consciousness - at the wheel of his car it is likely that he will be deemed to have been at fault for not having stopped driving when he started to feel drowsy, i.e. when he was still able to exercise control. Sane automatism has thus been sub-divided into two categories. These are: Non self-induced automatism For example concussion (brain injury) caused by a blow to the head, hypoglycaemia or a swarm of bees in the car. This is a defence both to crimes of specific and basic intent.

Self-induced automatism which arises from voluntary intoxication by alcohol or dangerous drugs. This is not a defence to crimes of basic intent although it will be a defence to a crime of specific intent where the automatism prevented the defendant from forming the necessary mens rea for the crime

Actus Reus : Omission A crime can be committed by omission, but there can be no omission in law in the absence of a duty to act. The reason is obvious. If there is an act, someone acts; but if there is an omission, everyone (in a sense) omits. We omit to do everything in the world that is not done. Only those of us omit in law who are under a duty to act. There are circumstances where the law does impose on a person a duty to act. Sometimes a statute will specifically state that the actus reus of an offence is committed by omission and sometimes the courts will determine that a particular offence may be committed by omission even though the definition of that offence does not specifically provide for this.

Duty to act under the common law In addition to those offences where a duty to act is expressed in the definition, it has been established by the courts that a defendant will be under a duty to act where: a. There is a duty arising out of a contract Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 Taunton Assizes: The defendant was a level crossing keeper for the Somerset and Dorset Railway whose job between 7am and 7pm was, for the safety of the public, to shut the gate whenever a train was passing through. One afternoon he left the gate open and a hay cart which was crossing the railway line was hit by a train, causing the death of one person and the serious injury of another. Pittwood was charged with and convicted of manslaughter. The railway company had assumed the liability of protecting the public whenever they crossed the line. Pittwood's contract with the railway company gave rise to duties to those who would be affected by his negligent performance of that contract. He was grossly and criminally negligent as he had been paid to keep the gate shut and protect the public. b. D has inadvertently created a dangerous situation, becomes aware of it, but fails to take steps to rectify it Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 HL: The defendant was a tramp who was squatting in an empty house. He fell asleep on a mattress without having extinguished his cigarette. He awoke to find the mattress on fire. He moved to the next room and went back to sleep. The house caught fire and £800 worth of damage was caused. He was convicted of arson (criminal damage by fire: sections 1(1) and 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971). The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction and he appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords upheld his conviction. Lord Diplock said: I see no rational ground for excluding from conduct capable of giving rise to criminal liability conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one's power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created, if at the time of such conduct one's state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence. I venture to think that the habit of lawyers to talk of 'actus reus', suggestive as it is of action rather than inaction, is responsible for any erroneous notion that failure to act cannot give rise to criminal liability in English law. c. There is a duty arising out of the relationship itself Husbands and wives owe a duty to each other, parents owe a duty to their children (see The Children and Young Persons Act above), and it is likely that under the common law children who are capable of so doing owe a similar duty to their parents and possibly to each other . d. A person has assumed the duty to care for another If a grown up person chooses to undertake the charge of a human creature helpless either from infancy, simplicity, lunacy or other infirmity, he is bound to execute that charge without.negligence. (Per Brett J in R v Nicholls (1875) 13 Cox 75) Stone and Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 345: Stone, who was 67, was almost blind, partially deaf and of low intelligence, lived with Dobinson and his mentally subnormal son. Dobinson, aged 43, was described as 'inadequate' and 'ineffectual'. Stone's younger sister Fanny came to live with them. She suffered from anorexia nervosa. She stayed in her room but would occasionally go the kitchen for food when Stone and Dobinson were out. Over the two years she lived with them she became progressively more ill. The defendants did try to help her, for example by trying to find Fanny's doctor although Fanny would not tell them his name. Neither defendant knew how to use a telephone. Mrs Dobinson and a neighbour washed Fanny who by that time was confined to bed and lying in her own excrement. The neighbour tried unsuccessfully to get a local doctor to visit Fanny. A social worker visited the house occasionally to see Stone's son but nobody was informed of Fanny's condition. Fanny finally died. Per Geoffrey Lane LJ: .Whether Fanny was a lodger or not she was a blood relation of the appellant Stone; she was occupying a room in his house; the appellant Dobinson had undertaken the duty of trying to wash her, of taking such food to her as she required. There was ample evidence that each appellant was aware of the poor condition she was in.It was not disputed that no effort was made to summon an ambulance or the social services or the police.they did make efforts to care.The jury were entitled to find that the duty had been assumed.

New Development In Khan and Khan [1998] two drug dealers supplied heroin to the victim. Having ingested the drug she fell into a coma, the defendants failed to obtain medical assistance and she died. They were convicted of manslaughter and appealed to the Court of Appeal where their convictions were quashed. Swinton LJ commented: To extend the duty to summon medical assistance to a drug dealer who supplies heroin to a person who subsequently dies on the facts of this case would undoubtedly enlarge the class of persons to whom on previous authority, such a duty may be owed. It may be correct to hold that such a duty does arise.Unfortunately, the question as to the existence or otherwise of [any such] duty.was not.at any time considered by the judge and the jury was given no direction in relation to it.

Mens rea

Continued..........

Key Points To Remember

1. There are two main element of Criminal Offence ; Actus Rea and Mens Rea, with Strict Liability as counted element as well. 2. Actus Reus means action or omission. 3. Automatism is a plea by a defendant that his actions were not under the control of his conscious mind. 4. Automatism exception ; Where the defendant exercised some control (sane automatism). Where the condition which gave rise to the automatism can be brought within the ambit of the rules on insanity. Where there was prior fault on the part of the defendant. 5. A crime can be committed by omission, but there can be no omission in law in the absence of a duty to act.

6. Remember Duties under Common Law for omission

By this stage you must Understand ; Actus Reus

Self Assessment Question ; Explain Actus Reus in Detail.