Ahmad

Waqas © TMUC Isb

CRIMINAL LAW NOTES – ACTUS REUS

Chapter 2

Ø The basic requirement for criminal law is that there is prohibited conduct (the
external element) and accompanying mental element( the internal element).
Ø This is based on a Latin maxim called actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Which
literally means ‘an act is not criminal in the absence of guilty mind.
Ø The actus reus of any crime constitutes the package of behavior which forms the
substance of a criminal prohibition.
Ø The mental element is also known as the internal element, the mens rea, the guilty
mind or the fault element.
Ø So when ever you are faced with any criminal activity there can three possible areas
you need to consider, firstly what is the actus reus of the offence, secondly that the
actus reus most coincide with the relevant mens rea (mental element) and finally are
there any possible defenses for the actions or the intention of the defendant.
Ø The actus reus of a crime comprises conduct, with or without a designated result,
including the presence of any circumstances necessary for that conduct to be
criminalised.
Ø Mens rea is generally the state of mind of the person who did the act, it can be
intentional, recklessness, dishonesty, knowledge and belief etc.
Ø The third element in criminal liability is that of criminal defenses. Defenses block
criminal liability although the elements of the offence (actus reus and mens rea) are
present. Some of the more common defenses are self defense, insanity, consent,
duress and necessity.
Ø Woolmington v DPP the House of Lords had to consider whether the fact that the
actus reus was satisfied meant that the burden was placed on A to prove that the
killing was an accident.
Ø The general presumption is that someone’s bad intention i.e mens rea cannot alone
make them guilty in case where they are unable to complete their evil thoughts.
However in case of R V. Dadson the court adopted a different approach where
Dadson was the police constable who shot the victim who was already an escaping
felon. Thus D shooting him was not illegal but his not knowing made it problematic
and therefore D was held liable.
Ahmad Waqas © TMUC Isb

Ø The burden of proof lies on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt before the
jury that the defendant committed the act and that he or she had the relevant mental
state to do so. Negating the possible defenses is also the responsibility of the
prosecution.

Chapter 3 Conduct and Circumstances:

Ø The actus reus in crime compromises conduct which always has to be present,
secondly that the conduct was wrongful (if any required) and finally the result from
that conduct (this is usually in the case of resulting crimes, explained further in
notes).
Ø The ‘act requirement’ of the offence requires the prosecution to prove that the
defendant did a wrongful act. There are two components of the act, firstly there has to
be bodily movement secondly that bodily movement is voluntary.
Ø In Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland HL, Lord Denning explained this as follows:
“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...”
Ø Generally the law provides general rule and exceptions in almost all situations. The
general rule regarding criminal law is that there is act and that act is involuntary.
However there are three exceptions to this general rule. These are known as
Situational crimes, crimes of possession and crimes of omission.
Ø Statutory crimes of omission are the ones, which requires are us to do something
and omission of that would result into sanction. Typically the words of statue will
expressly create a duty to act in a particular way. E.g failing to submit tax returns.
Ø Criminal liability may also on occasion be based upon being in possession of a
prohibited article; for example controlled drugs, extreme pornography, offensive
weapons or articles for use in terrorist offences. These again are statutory crimes and
are known as crimes of possession. Examples are R v. Warner (case in which D had
two boxes given to him one had scent and other had controlled drugs) R v. Lewis, R
v. McNamara
Ahmad Waqas © TMUC Isb

Ø Finally situational crimes are generally those crimes which requires the defendant
been found in the prohibited situation. (e.g being drunk in public). R v. Larsonneur
and Winzar v. Chief constable of Kent. R v. Elvin (case of dog escape)
Ø Can there be liability in crimes of commission (which requires us to do something) by
omission (failure to do something) e.g Murder.

It this point it is important to understand the difference between conduct and result crimes
(Although we will have detailed discussion on it later)

Conduct - the conduct itself might be criminal. Eg. the conduct of lying under oath represents
the actus reus of perjury. It does not matter that whether the lie is believed or if had any effect
on the outcome of the case, the actus reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct.
Examples of conduct crimes
Perjury, Theft, Making off without payment, Rape, Possession of drugs or a firearm etc.

Result - The actus reus may relate to the result of the act or omission of the defendant. The
conduct itself may not be criminal, but the result of the conduct may be. Eg it is not a crime to
throw a stone, but if it hits a person or smashes a window it could amount to a crime,
Causation must be established in all result crimes.
Examples of result crimes, Assault, Battery, ABH, Wounding and GBH,
Murder & Manslaughter, Criminal damage

Key requirements for criminal liability

To ensure the net of criminal responsibility is not spread too far, there are certain key
restrictions on criminal liability in cases of harm caused by omission.

1. The conduct element of the crime in question must be capable of commission by omission.

 (R v. Bland), (Pretty v. DPP)

As long as the definition of the crime does not specify a particular mode of
commission it is no objection that the crime is defined in such a way as to imply an
active mode of execution. (DPP V. Santa Bermudez.)

2. The circumstances must be such as to create a legal duty to act:

In (R v. Kenny’s )it was held “no one is held criminally responsible at common law
for the harmful consequences of his omission to act, whether that omission be
Ahmad Waqas © TMUC Isb

careless or intentional, unless the prosecution can prove that he was under a legal
obligation to take action in the particular circumstances in which he was place.

Parents are under legal duty of their children (R v. Gibbins and proctor)

Where there is a contractual duty. (R v. Pittwood, R v. Instan, R v. Smith)

Informal assumption of duty (R v. Stone and Dobinson, R v. Bonnyman)

The duty to avert a dangerous situation caused by the defendant. (R v. Miller) D was
squatting at someone’s house and slept there without stubbing his cigarette, fire broke
out, D was charged of arson.

3. The defendant’s failure to act must be in breach of that duty. 


4. The defendant’s failure to act must be voluntary. 


5. The harm must be caused by the omission.