ELEMENTS OF

ACTUS REUS &

MENS REA
CRIMINAL LAW
ACTUS REUS

Includes acts, omissions, consequences and surrounding circumstances.

Consequences & surrounding circumstances (states of affairs)
Acts & Omissions (conduct)
• Consequences
• Omissions
• Surrounding Circumstances
• Acts
ACTUS REUS

Consequences – The consequence of your action can lead to criminal liability.

• R v Shivpuri – by attempting to bring about an illegal consequence. Guilty (Drugs? suitcase)
• R v Lewis- Fearing attack, jumped out of window, injured. Attacker guilty.
• R v Paget & Pemberton- (3rd party reacted) – held preggo girl hostage, as shield, police killed
• R v Malcherek v Steel- Victim life support turned off, original wound causer guilty
• R v Blaue- Attacked victim, because Jehovahs witness, refuses transfusion and dies, att guilty
• R v Cheshire- treatement not independent of the D’s act and so potent in causing the death
 ACTUS REUS

Omission – failure to act can constitute actus reus

• R v Pitwood – Guilty of manslaughter, failed to close gate at railway crossing (contractual duty)
• R v Adomako – guilty of mansl., failed to perform procedure time, negligent (professional resp.)
• R v Stone & Dobinson- guilty of mansl, did not discharge duty of care undertaken (old sick sis)
• R v Gibbins & Proctor- guilty of murder, neglected child, couple liable (loco parentis)
• R v Miller- duty to minimize own harmful act. Guilty of arson. (burning bed, no care)
• Road Traffic Act & Income Tax Act- failure to pay taxes or declare may render one liable
 ACTUS REUS

Surrounding circumstances of states of affairs- Accused willed action not the issue (the situation)
• R v Larsonneur- refused leave to go UK from Ireland. Police took him to UK, found guilty
• Winzar v Chief Constable- drunk told to leave hosp., put in copcar, guilty of being drunk on highway
• Lim Chin Aik v R- remaining in a country contrary to statute is not offence if accused is ignorant of
prohibition. (1963) Privy Council
• Larsonneur is criticized as peculiarly offensive by Smith & Hogan
 ACTUS REUS

Acts- must be a voluntary conscious movement by me, of my muscles. Automatism = no actus reus
• R v Burgess- A suffered from apoplexy, while under an attack of illness, hit B. Act was held to be
involuntary.
• Hill v Baxter- Accused was stung by bee while driving. As a result he lost control of vehicle and
killed someone. No actus reus on the accused part.
MENS REA

Refers to the Accused’s state of mind. It must have caused the event

• Blameless inadvertence
• Intention
• Recklessness
• Negligence
MENS REA

Blameless inadvertence- Accused failed to foresee consequence, or statute imposes duty

• Strict Liability- no mens rea required, but courts still may examine
• Road traffic, spirit license, drugs, environmental protection

• Transferred Malice- D is liable if, having the mens rea of a crime, then fulfills the actus reus of that
crime, even if the result is not intended.
MENS REA

Blameless inadvertence- Strict liability

• Sweet v Parsley [1969]- teacher let rooms to tenants & kept one for herself
• Tenants smoked cannabis on premises, she had no knowledge of it
• Teacher convicted ‘concerned with management of premises for smoking’ pot
• HoL quashed conviction- statute required some element of mens rea
• Teacher had no such mens rea, not criminally liable
MENS REA

Blameless inadvertence- Strict liability

• Rv Mcnamara (1988)- X was stopped, in possession of a box, on motor cycle
• Box had cannabis resin which he was delivering for a man who he wouldn’t name
• X thought box had porn etc. Convicted under statute (Misuse of Drugs Act s5)
• Jury felt he had box and either knew contents or proved he ought to have
• Court of appeal approved decision, appeal dismissed
MENS REA

Blameless inadvertence- Strict liability (Environment)

• Alphacell v Woodward [1972]- D built and ran settling tanks
• Tanks had overflow channel in river, had pumps to stop overflow
• Pumps got blocked by vegetation, overflow of polluted water happened
• D was not proved negligent, nor did he know
• Liability for offence was STRICT
 MENS REA

Blameless inadvertence- Transferred Malice

• D is liable if, having the mens rea of a crime, then fulfills the actus reus of that crime, even if the result is not
intended.
Click to add text
R v Latimer (1886)- D hit at X with belt, hit him barely, but wounded Y . D liable for injury to Y.
Actus reus and mens rea of crime coincided, despite intentions.
R v Pembliton [1874-80]- D was in a fight outside & threw stone at X. Stone missed but broke a
window. Convicted for malicious damage. Conviction quashed. No mens rea for resulting crime.
Actus reus of mal damage didn’t match the mens rea of the crime
 MENS REA

Intention – Crimes of Specific Intent

Crimes of intent- accused seeks to do something and acts, achieving the result or a probable
consequence.
• Murder
• Theft
• Wounding with intent
A intends to shoot B, fires gun, killing or wounding him. Either consequence can arise from
shooting. A will have mens rea of crime and direct intent.
 MENS REA

Intention- Crimes of Oblique Intent

A intends only to scare B, comes to him with gun. B wrestles with A. Gun goes off injuring B. A
has oblique intent.
• R v Moloney [1985] intention differs from motive, was not a case of oblique intent (drunken fam
shootout)
• Court of Appeal dismissed appeal & D appealed to the HoL
• Held: The defendant's conviction for murder substituted for manslaughter. It was not a case of oblique
intent and the judge should not have issued a direction relating to further expansion of intention.
 MENS REA

R v Hancock & Shankland [1985]

• Appellants convicted of murder for the death of a taxi driver. Appellants were miners on strike.

• They wanted to block the road to the mine to prevent works breaking the picket line.

• They had dropped lumps of concrete and a post from a bridge on to the carriageway below as the workers approached.
The taxi was struck by two lumps of concrete resulting in death of the driver.

• Convicted of murder. The appellants argued they only intended to block the road and no harm was intended to result
from the actions.

CA quashed the conviction and certified a point of law to the House of Lords as to whether the Moloney direction was
misleading. The Moloney direction was misleading as it did not refer to the degree of probability required.
 MENS REA

R v Hancock & Shankland [1985]

The appropriate direction should include a reference to the degree of probability and in particular an
explanation that the greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it is that the
consequence was foreseen and that if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability is
that that consequence was also intended.

Greater probability- likelihood of it being foreseen

Consequence foreseen- likelihood of intention
 MENS REA

R v Nedrick [1986]- N threatened to ‘burn out’ P, poured paraffin in letter box & lit it
P child died, N convicted of murder
Conviction quashed, replaced with manslaughter
Jury must ask:
How probable was consequence from Def voluntary act?
Did he foresee that consequence? Revisit Hyam v DPP
 MENS REA

Recklessness- see slide on drive

Negligence- see Adomako case