Actus Reus In Recklessness And Common Assault Law Essay

Actus Reus In mindlessness And Common irreverence Law EssayMaxim deportus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means that the blameable act on its stimulate will non propose a someone iniquitously liable unless it was done with a guilty bring up of approximation. The majority of crimes be brought about by a mixture of actions and ar referred to as the guilty acts these represent the physical elements of a crime (actus reus).The psychological elements are the thoughts or guilty fix of mind (mens rea).If actus reus and mens rea are cognize and there is no valid defence, the suspect will be embed guilty. It is the task of the prosecution to demonstrate together the actus reus and the mens rea of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt to the agreement of the judge and jury. If the proof is non ensnare indeed the defendant will be acquitted.The actus reus covers altogether the exterior elements of an offence and dwells of conduct, circumstances, and consequences. These are divided into dickens categories Conduct crimes and resolve crimesConduct crimes consist of conduct and circumstance and are those in which the actus reus is touch with prohibited demeanour in spite of its consequences, an example of this would be to drive when you have been disqualified.Result crimes are those where the guilty act requires proof that the conduct exercised the outlawed consequence, for example, the actus reus of criminal monetary value is that the property owned by an early(a)(prenominal) person is damaged, and a nonher(prenominal) example is the act of killing close toone or committing murder.As provide crimes are concerned with causing the consequences the prosecution must show that it was the defendants behavior that ca utilise the result or circumstances to occur, they have to provide a clear, unremitting causal link. Causation requires a two stage testactual causing, the defendants act must be a sine qua non of the prohibited consequence. This e xactly means that the consequence would not have occurred without the defendants actions.R v.White (1910) 2 KB 124(CA) this case deals with just for test. The test establishes multiple factual coiffures of death.Legal causation usher out be established by showing that defendants act was an in operation(p) and substantial cause of death. It whitethorn not be the sole or main cause but it must make a world-shaking contribution.R v. Cheshire (1991) 1WLR 844 (CA),R v. Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 (CA).R v. metalworker (1959)Legal causation also deals with fault, assigning blame, and responsibility. The defendant will be liable for the alone foreseeable consequences or results of their actions.R v. Roberts (1972) 56 Cr App R 95 (CA),R v. Marjoram (1999) (CA).There is no obligation in criminal law for omissions unless that failure to act was whilst you are chthonic a duty to act. The duty to act abide arise in some(prenominal)(prenominal) waysDuty arising from statute for examp le s.170 (4) of the Road business Act 1998 places a duty on the driver involved in an accident to report it to the police or provide details to of the other people involved.Contractual duty, if nearone fails to so something under a de jure binding contract that they are contracted to do they may be criminally liable if any harm or injury occurs as a result of their failure to act. R v. Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 (Assizes) concerned a duty to act, contractParental duty to act and a duty towards family members, this is a common law duty that members of a family owe to each other to care for each others welfare. R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 134 concerning duty to care, R v. Harris and Harris (1993)Reliance or intended assumption of care, R v. Stone and Dobson (1977) CASupervening fault or risky positioning, this is where the defendant does nothing to avert a dangerous situation resulting from their conduct. R v. Miller (1983) 1 altogether ER 978 in sexual relati on to situation created by the defendant.The mens rea deals with the guilty state of mind. There are two states of mind which either together or separately can tenor the necessary mens rea for a criminal offence. These are Intention and Recklessness.Direct figure is where the defendants purpose is to cause death, mens rea of murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous visible harm.Indirect intent which is also known as catty-corner or foresight intent is where the unlawful consequence as a result of the defendants conduct is foreseen by the defendant as almost certain although its not the defendants purpose. R v. Woollin (1999) 1 AC 82 (HL) oblique intention, virtual certainty.Recklessness is where the defendant fulfills an unjustified and unreasonable risk.There are two known types of recklessness, internal and objective. The law tends to concentrate on intrinsic tests.R v. G (2004) 1 AC 1034 (HL) subjective recklessness, criminal damageR v.Cunningham (1957) 2 QB 396 (CA) subjective recklessness and interpretation of malicious. The Cunningham test applies to all offences other than criminal damage.Coincidence of actus reus and mens reaWhen the defendant commits the actus reus of an offence, for indebtedness to occur it must be shown that they also had the correct mens rea at the cadence the actus reus was perpetrate. The guilty act and guilty state of mind must coincide.Problems have cropped up where the actus reus has been performed, thence the mens rea comes into play, and also where the mens rea is present first and then the actus reus followsIn order to subdue these problems the courts have used several approaches in order to secure a conviction where the actus reus is complete prior to the mens rea being present, and with the mens rea occurring before the actus reus. The approaches that they have used are called go along acts and a chain of events.Continuing act is where the actus reus is committed over a period of time and the mens rea is present at some point during it commission.Continuing actsFagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)1 QB 439 (DC)The defendant accidentally give his car on a policemans foot, (actus reus) when he realised this he didnt take it off (mens rea).It was a continuous act as he had actus reus when he ran over his foot and this only stopped when the car was moved and then the mens rea when he refused to move it. The defendant was subsequently undercoat guilty of set upon.R v. Kaitamaki (1985) AC 147He penetrated the victim (actus reus) and when he realised she objected to the penetration he did not withdraw at which point mens rea was present. It was held that the actus reus of rape was a continuing act, and when he realised she objected he formed the mens rea the actus reus was still continuing and so there was coincidence. The defendant was found guilty of rape.R v. Miller (1983) 2 AC 161 (HL)The defendant fell asleep on a mattress in a house whilst smoking a pouf. When he woke up he noticed that the mattress was smouldering he left it and decided to go to another share of the house. He do no attempt whatsoever to stop the damage and due to this the house caught on fire. The act which caused the (actus reus) dropping of the cigarette happened when the defendant was asleep and the (mens rea) recklessness, damage to property occurred when he awoke. It was held that the defendants failure to do anything about putting the fire out was the actus reus and this coincided with the appropriate mens rea.Chain of eventsThis is the game approach that deals with the mens rea occurring before the actus reus. The defendant will be found to be criminally liable if the guilty act and guilty state of mind are present even if they do not coincide during the series of events.R. v Church (1966) 1 QB 59 (CA)The defendant took the victim to a van in order to have sex with her. The victim made fun of him so the defendant knocked her unconscious (mens rea). The defendant believed she was dead so he threw her into a river in order to get rid of the victim. The victim then died (actus rea). The defendants conduct was viewed as a series of acts designed to cause GBH or death. The actus reus and mens rea were present during the chain of events. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughterR v. Thabo Mali (1954) PC (South Africa)The defendants took the victim to a hut and beat him over the signal intending to kill him. They believed they had killed him so they rolled him over a cliff. The victim did not die from the beating or being rolled of the cliff but died of exposure. It was held that the actus reus and mens rea was present throughout. The actus reus consisted of a series of acts and the mens rea was present at some time during the chain of events. They were found guilty of murder.R v. Le Brun (1991) CAThe defendant knocked the victim (his wife) unconscious. Whilst he was moving her she knocked her power point on the kerb and this fractured her skull. She subsequent died of the injury. It was held that the original unlawful act and the act causing death (actus reus) and the (mens rea) were all part of the same chain of events. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter.My own exampleIm employed as a female p pull rounderer on a building billet. After finishing work one evening and on my way home I realised that I had left something behind, so I head back too the site. The site has never been secured justly and the workforces have been complaining about this for some time. Whilst back on site a stranger approaches me and threatens to cause me some harm. As he is access towards me I deliver a powerful kick into his stomach which causes him to sink back and trip over an item on the floor. He bangs his head on the ground and I also use my hawk to clobber him over the head several times to ensure he does not get up again in a hurry. There is a great deal of furrow on the floor and he does not appear to be breathing. I feel that he may be dead. I drag his body too the back of the worksite and hide it amongst some very tall weeds. I go back to the area where the blood is, clean up, and then leave the site. This example illustrates how the actus reus and mens rea are all part of the same chain of events and were present throughoutTask 1(b)Common transgress does not involve physical contact. It is an offence under s39 of The Criminal umpire Act 1998.The actus reus of common assault is when the defendant causes the victim to apprehend (expect) present(prenominal) unlawful violence. This can be carried out by conduct, deeds, menacing silence, words, or a failure to act.R v. Ireland (1998) AC 147 (HL)The defendant made several silent calls to the victims, these occurred during the evening. They eventually suffered from psychiatric illnesses (depression, stress, anxiety). The House of Lords decided that words can amount to an assault and that silence calls could be seen as communicating a threat. T he defendant was found guilty of assault.R v. Constanza (1997) 2 Cr App R 492(CA)The defendant stalked the victim by following her home, turning up to her home address uninvited, writing offensive words on her preliminary door, making several silent phone calls and sending her over 800 letters. The last letter was hand-delivered and this led to the defendant being found guilty of assault. The victim suffered psychiatric illness as a result of the defendants actions.The mens rea of common assault is the intention to cause apprehension of immediate violence or subjective recklessness as to the assault. bombing involves the use of physical force. The actus reus of battery is the imposition of force or violence, this embroils slight touching.The actus reus is made up of three elements which consist of direct and indirect physical contact, non-consensual and physical contact.R. v Haystead (2000) 3 All ER 890 (DC) This case concerns indirect contact.The defendant punched a mother belo ngings her baby. The baby dropped and the defendant was convicted of battery on the baby.Battery requires non-consensual touching, the victim can consent to contact (express) or contact is implied, day to day contact. Battery deals with belittled physical contact resulting in minor injuries for example grazes, minor bruising, slight cuts, and black eyes.Collins v Wilcox (1984) 1 WLR 1172 (DC) this case gave examples of implied consent, agree back slapping, seizing a hand in friendship and jostle on the underground.The mens rea of battery is exactly the same as assault, intention to make physical contact or subjective recklessness as to much(prenominal) contact.Unlawful malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent is the most serious of all the non-fatal offences and is found in s18 OAPA 1861. Section 18 covers GBH by omission.The actus reus is that the defendant must have unlawfully wounded a person or caused grievous bodily harm. It involves recondite repeated cuts, minor cuts, bones penetrating the skin. Serious injury includes genial injury and most recently the transmission of diseases.R v. Ireland, Burstow (1998) AC 147 (HL)As in Ireland above. Both defendants stalked the victims with unwanted attention for over 3 years. The victims suffered from psychiatric injuries as a result of the ongoing acts. The house of lords in both cases concluded that harm to a persons mind that amounted to a recognized medical condition would fall under the category of bodily harm.R v Dica (2004) QB 1257 (CA)The defendant who was HIV positive had unprotected sex with several women. The defendant was fully aware that he was infected but he did not inform the victims of his condition. The court of appeal accepted that a person could be liable for recklessly infecting another person with HIV.The mens rea of GBH with intent is that the defendant must have intention to wound or cause GBH. Recklessness as to causing GBH or wounding (malice) and intention to re sist or prevent arrest.Strict Liability offences are those in which the defendant may not have intended or known about the consequences of their actions or the circumstances. The defendant does not need to have a guilty state of mind in relation to all parts of the actus reus (guilty act). Strict obligation cases make up half the cases appearing before the courts.Defences for strict liability are those that are applicable to actus reus. Defences that are probably relevant to actus reus include automatism and duress and also foreseeability is kinda important as well.Strict liability offences are mainly created by statute and regarded as regulatory offences and world safety/public interest offences. The offences that are covered are quite extensive and include parking offences, road traffic offences, health and safety, dangerous drugs, dangerous weapons, sexual offences, environmental defilement, possession and the control of dangerous and non-dangerous animals. angelical v Parsle y (1970) HL This case is an important case on strict liability where the need for mens rea in most criminal cases was spell out and where it was suitable for the presumption for mens rea to be dispensed with.Harrow LBC v. Shah (2000) 1 WLR 83 (DC) The defendant was found guilty of selling a drafting ticket to a young person under the age of 16. The defendant was unaware of the persons age when selling the ticket.R v Marriot (1971) the defendant was found guilty after police searched his home and found a particular amount of cannabis on a knife. His defence told the court that he had not been aware of what the perfume on the blade was, he appealed against the termination and was still convicted. It was held that the accused was guilty if he knew that there was a aggregate on his knife even if he did not know what the substance was.R v Deyemi (2007) CA the defendants were caught with a stun crap-shooter, which they believed to be a torch. It was held that the prosecution only h ad to prove that they possessed the stun gun, and the stun gun was forbidden by the act. The prosecution did not have to prove that the defendants knew that it was an unratified weaponAlphacell v Woodward (1972) HL the defendants were charged with causing pollution to a river. The pollution occurred as a result of a pipe fit blocked from their factory and the waste product entered a nearby river.FJH Wrothwell v Yorkshire Water Co. (1984), the defendant who was the director of the companycarelessly poured 12 gallons of weedkiller into drains. These drains led into a river.Smedleys v Breed (1974) AC 839 A wide-ranging manufacturer of tinned peas was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act (1955) (now Food and base hit Act 1990) when some tins were found to contain a caterpillarsThe arguments in favor of strict liability areThey help to prevent environmental pollutionPeople may be prevented from owning unlawful weapons and drugsThe public is protected against grave structuresHelp s to encourage people to really improve standards so they will not be prosecuted for committing a criminal offence