StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Actus Reus as the Element of the Crime - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The author of the paper "Actus Reus as the Element of the Crime" is on the view that causation is one of the actus reus crimes. This is where conduct by one or by the defendant is the substantial cause of the consequence or the result. Parties to offenses also crop up in this question. …
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER96.1% of users find it useful
Actus Reus as the Element of the Crime
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Actus Reus as the Element of the Crime"

? Criminal law Actus Reus is the outward conduct element of the crime. The mental element necessary for a particular crime or the blameworthy state of mind that accompanies the act or conduct is called mens rea. These two ingredients form the basic element of the crime. Thus, mens rea by itself is not enough; the actus rea also has to be established. Causation is one of the actus reus crimes. This is where a conduct by one or by the defendant is the substantial cause of the consequence or the result. Parties to offences also crop up in this question. When there are different parties to a crime, principle offenders are deemed to have contributed to committing the offence. In this case Andrew decides to kill his wife Sue in order to be with Beth. He acts by hiring a hit man, John to do the work for him on some payment. In doing this, he acts as the counsellor. This is by encouraging, and inciting John to commit the crime and offering him money as payment for it. This makes him a party to the crime as a counsellor. A person who counsels or procures another person to commit a crime is a principle offender if the offence is actually committed. He is therefore liable for the same penalties as John as if he had committed the offence himself. It is immaterial whether the offence actually committed was the same as that counselled. Provided that the facts surrounding the offence committed are a probable or direct consequence of that counsel. For example in the case of Twelve v R1, where a son procured a witchdoctor to kill is mother whom he believed was a witch and was responsible for killing his children. He believed that the witchdoctor would superficially kill his mother however; the witchdoctor killed her by shooting her on the back in her hut at night. The son was held to have been likely convicted of murder for having procured the witchdoctor to kill his mother. The means used was immaterial, guiding another person to commit a crime, makes one a party to the offence. For example in the case of DPP of Northern Ireland v Maxwell2, A drove his car to a pub knowing that he was guiding another vehicle containing members of a terrorist movement. A realised that some kind of attack was to be made but did not know the form it would take. Members of the terrorist group threw a piped bomb into a pub but fortunately, it did not explode. A was held guilty for being an accessory to a crime and of doing an act with intent of causing the explosion and being in possession of explosives. The court found that those were offences within the range of possibilities, which he contemplated, would be committed. Andrew is therefore criminally liable for attempted murder of Tim and his penalty is the same as that of John. Even if the person killed was not the person he intended, he still is a party to the transferred murder of Tim. Similarly, since Andrew had procured John to kill Sue, who ended up attacking Tim instead, it still stands that Andrew advised him to commit a crime of that nature. It does not matter that it is Sue he wanted killed. As long as John acted on the procurement, Andrew also provided John with the gun to be used to commit the crime. Helping giving assistance to the perpetrator or offering the weapon in the doing of a crime, whether before or during the commission of the offence makes one an aider or abettor to the offence. Andrew had the intention to kill Sue and thus it does not matter that John killed the wrong person. There was still the intention to commit a crime. Andrew is then a principle offender by virtue of this and thus he is jointly liable for attempted murder of Tim since there is a common intention by the offenders to commit the murder. This is illustrated in R v Bainbridge3 where the appellant supplied thieves with cutting equipment for breaking into a bank. It was held that the equipment was to be used for some kind of breaking even if he did not know what particular bank. Likewise, since Andrew knew the purpose the gun was going to be used for, he is liable as a party to the offence. Further, Andrew decides to kill Sue himself as John killed the wrong person by mistake. Mens rea, according to Glanville Williams is the mental element necessary for a particular crime. Andrew had the intention to commit the crime, which is the highest level of criminal responsibility of the offender. This is because he intended to cause the result that is the death of Sue. Intention is of two types, that is direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention is where the consequence is what one is aiming at. When Andrew killed Sue, we find that he had the intention of the same as he had first hired John to do the job and when failed, he decided to do it himself. He even drives to her house with the motive of killing her. Therefore, he had the intention to kill Sue as he had planned or calculated before. Even though Sue insulted him making him burn with rage or anger, it was not enough to provoke him to commit such a crime. From this, we can establish that not only did he have the intention but also enough malice aforethought to kill Sue. This is because he knew that stubbing Sue with a knife would cause her death. Therefore, Andrew is liable criminally for the murder of Sue by stabbing her continuously with a knife. He is therefore the perpetrator in this offence of murder. Transferred malice is where for example a person mistakes or using bad judgment causes injury to the wrong person or property. In such a case, he is still liable of the offence he intended. For example, if one has planned to shoot X and by mistake kills Y instead, he is still liable for the murder of Y as he had the intention to commit a crime and had the mental element for that. The facts that John meant to kill sue but instead went ahead and shot Tim is still evident that he had the mens rea to murder and even if he shot the wrong person, he is liable for the offence. This was upheld in the case of R v Latimer,4 where D aimed a blow at X with a belt but by mistake hit V. He was convicted of unlawful wounding under the Offences against Persons Act 1861. Upon appeal, the criminal Appeal Court held that he had intent to do an unlawful act and in carrying out that intent, he injured a person. The fact that he injured V instead of X was immaterial and in such a circumstance, he must be found guilty. In addition, the position was upheld in the case of R v Pembliton 5where D picked up a large stone to throw it at someone with whom he was fighting and broke a window. He was convicted for malicious damage. Further, in R v Mitchell6, D assaulted a man, aged 72years, in a post office queue. The man fell onto V, an elderly woman of 82 years of age who died from the injuries she suffered. D was convicted for manslaughter. On appeal, Straughton J, stated that “we cannot see the reason for holding that a particular act calculated to harm A cannot be manslaughter if it instead kills B”. Therefore, the appeal was declined. Hence, it clear that the fact that John had established mens rea to commit an offence, then even if he killed the wrong person it is still an execution of his intention to commit an offence and therefore he is liable for injuring Tim as well founded mens rea can be established. Further authority is the case of R v Saunders7, where the defendant poisoned an apple with arsenic and gave it to his wife. His intention was to kill her in allowing him marry another woman. The wife bites the apple then gave it to their daughter to eat. Consequently the daughter died. The defendant was held liable for murdering his daughter as his intention of killing his wife was transferred to his daughter. Applying this to John, the intention to kill Sue was transferred to her brother Tim. Further, a person who actually does an act or makes an omission, which constitutes an offence, is a perpetrator. John is given the work by Andrew to kill. He was the perpetrator in shooting Tim. This is further proof of John’s liability. Omission or failure to act is where one neglects or fails to act when he ought to act. Legal duty to act may arise through holding a public office. When one holds a public office, they are under a duty to act and failure to do so results into an omission. Tracey is a police officer when she saw Tim injured, she decides to do nothing and walks away. This is an omission since in her office as a police officer; she had the duty to act in such instances at all times. This is illustrated by the case of R v Dytham8 where the police officer was standing by a hotdog stall in Duke Street St. Helens. Some thirty yards away was Cindy’s club. A man by the name Stabs was ejected from the club by a bouncer. A fight ensued which a number of men joined. There were cries, screams, and other indications of great violence, resulting in Mr. Stabs becoming an object of murderous assault. All this was audible to the police who took no step to intervene and instead drove off. He was convicted for misconduct while acting as an officer of justice. On appeal, it was held that he could be found guilty of the offence of misconduct in a public office. Likewise, Tracey is liable for misconduct in a public office as a police officer as she ignored her duty and omitted to act where needed. Factual causation is where one accelerates the crime. Here, the “but for” rule is applied that is, but for the defendant’s action, that consequence could not have occurred. John with the intention to kill Sue There was intention as he intended to cause the death. He is the one who did the act of trying to kill Sue and therefore he was the perpetrator of the crime. Although Sue did not die, there was factual causation. That is, to accelerate under factual position. Here, the “but for” rule applies. That is but for John’s action, that consequence of death of Sue could not have occurred. Where the required consequence would not have occurred without the defendants act, an intervening act by third parties can contribute to it. This can be where the defendants act was not the immediate cause of the required circumstance but contributes to it by providing the setting for an intervening act for someone else, which is then the immediate cause of the consequence. Here we can apply the Hart and Honore principle that, “the free deliberate and informed intervention of a second party, who intends to exploit the situation created by the first person but is not acting in concert with him is usually held to relieve the first person of criminal charge . Therefore, if the treatment is negligent, it is only the most exceptional cases that will break the chain of causation between the act causing the injury and the death. When treating Tim, the doctor was negligent. In addition, according to R v Smith9, the court Marshall stated that it is only if it we can say that the original wound is merely the situation in which another cause operates can it be said that the death did not result from the wound. Therefore, if the second cause is so overwhelming as to render an original wound merely a part of the history then we can say that the result or death does not flow from the original wound. According to the case of R v Jordan10 where the defendant stabbed the deceased. The wound had almost healed when the deceased was given terimicine, which he was intolerant to and as a result, he died. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and he appealed. In the court of appeal, the conviction was quashed. The court held the immediate and direct cause of the death was a separate and independent feature, the treatment, and not the stab wound. If the death arose from normal treatment for an injury, the injury could be said to be the cause of death. However, this treatment was not normal and so broke the chain of causation. Therefore, in the case, Dr. Hawthorne was negligent and did not check if the deceased was allergic to painkillers or even bother to read Tim’s notes before administering the drug. This therefore broke the chain of causation as it was from this exceptional treatment that caused the death of Tim. The complication has to be the direct consequence of this act, which remains the significant cause of death. The chain of causation would not be broken unless negligent treatment was so independent of the defendant’s conduct that is in itself so potent to render the contribution of the defendants conduct insignificant.11 This was held in the case where, in an argument in a fish and chips shop, D shot P in the leg and stomach, seriously wounding him. Two months after the operation, P developed respiratory issues thus a tracheotomy tube was inserted to assist him breath. P died and the immediate cause of death was the narrowing of the wind- pipe where the tracheotomy tube was inserted. Such a condition is rare, but not an unknown complication arising out of tracheotomy. P had complained of further breathing difficulty and suffered a chest infection after the tracheotomy. The death was caused by the negligence of the hospital staff failing to diagnose and treat P’s respiratory condition. Therefore, we find that John only provided the setting for the death and the “but for” rule would not apply as the doctor’s negligence broke the chain of causation thus causing the death of Tim. This rendered the contribution of John insignificant. The doctor is therefore liable out of his negligence for manslaughter. Bibliography A Reed, Criminal Law (3rd edn Sweet &Maxwell 2006) Arthur Leavens, ‘A causation approach to criminal Omissions’ (1988) Carlifonia Law Review 76(3) CM Clarkson & H.M Keating, Criminal Law: Text and Materials, (5th edn Sweet & Maxwell: London, 2003) George P. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 1998) J.M Scheb, Criminal Law (4th edn Thomson Wadsworth 2006) Joel Sahama, Criminal Law (10th edn Wadsworth Cengage Learning 2011) N Padfield, Criminal Law (5th edn Oxford university press 2006) Ormerod, David, Smith and Hogan Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (9th edn Oxford 2005) R Card, Card, Cross & Jones: Criminal Law (18th edn Oxford University Press 2008) T.J. Gardner & T.M Anderson, Criminal Law (9th edn Thomson Wadsworth 2006) "Criminal law." www.jstor.org/stable/3480633 . N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jan. 2013. . Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Criminal law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words - 1”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1403759-criminal-law
(Criminal Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 Words - 1)
https://studentshare.org/law/1403759-criminal-law.
“Criminal Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 Words - 1”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1403759-criminal-law.
  • Cited: 1 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Actus Reus as the Element of the Crime

Principles of Criminal Liability

The principles of criminal liability are those elements of the crime that have occurred or not but have to be proven by the prosecutor.... The rule that says that the prosecutor has to prove every element of the principles beyond a reasonable doubt is called the 'corpus delicti rule' (Hall, 2011).... hen a crime is committed, it is said to have some elements that directly show how and why the crime has been committed in a broad view.... These elements should be proven by the prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt and in the cases where these elements are not proven, the person who is charged with the crime should be charged not guilty....
7 Pages (1750 words) Term Paper

Is the Current Law on Murder Still Acceptable

The laws of murder is basically dependent on two aspects i-e the physical act and the intention to commit the crime.... s talked about it earlier a criminal offense is a compound of both intention and action to commit the crime.... Actus reus is the first element of a criminal offense.... A criminal offense is only possible when both 'actus reus' and 'Mens rea' are conducted at a time.... actus REUSTo begin with the study of any case, firstly it is necessary to prove the criminal offense....
5 Pages (1250 words) Assignment

A crime in English Law and Canadian Law

Therefore, the crime occurs when an individual breaches criminal law prevailing in the state voluntarily and with guilty mind (actus reus and mens rea respectively).... These two elements are actus reus and mens rea.... In order to analyze definition of crime in English and Canadian laws, developing understanding of actus reus and mens rea is imperative.... ?? It is important to note that a crime will only be considered as committed if there is actus reus (guilty act carried out voluntarily) and mens rea (guilty mind leading to intention of committing the act) (Boyd, 2010)....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

To Talk of Actus Reus as Guilty Conduct Is to Misunderstand English Criminal Law

actus reus to mean such conduct as constitutes a crime if the mental element involved in the definition of the crime is also present (or, more shortly, conduct prohibited by law); and mens rea to mean such mental element, over and above volition, as is involved in the definition of the crime' (Director Of Public Prosecutions For Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] UKHL 5, page 18, also R v K [2001] UKHL 41, [2001] 3 WLR 471 (HL)).... The paper "To Talk of actus reus as Guilty Conduct Is to Misunderstand English Criminal Law" highlights that it is supported by the court that 'it is difficult in some cases to distinguish precisely between the 'actus reus' and the men's rea; the actus reus can include a mental element....
8 Pages (2000 words) Coursework

The Principle of Correspondence in Criminal Law

the crime in this case arises from the failure to act.... In criminal law, for an accused person to be found culpable, he or she is obliged to have indeed committed an unlawful act (actus reus) and must have acquired the mental state (mens rea) that propelled him to perform an illegal act.... actus reus is derived from Latin and means 'guilty act' whereas mens rea means 'guilty mind'.... Under actus reus, the guilty act referred to could either be the commission or omission of an act that then leads to the violation of existing laws....
11 Pages (2750 words) Essay

The System of Criminal Law

It gives readers a better understanding of the concept of 'actus reus' and 'men's rea' as well as looking into the subjective and objective test given.... In understanding, actus reus one must establish from the very beginning that it constitutes something much wider than just a criminal act.... In some instances failure to act or omission constitute actus reus of an offense.... Usually, just a physical act is required to satisfy actus reus requirements....
9 Pages (2250 words) Assignment

Relationship Between Actus Reus and Mens Rea

In addition, the principle of correspondence requires each element of the actus reus to have a corresponding mens rea.... An element of mens rea is essential for treating a defendant as being liable for the outcomes of his actions.... This report "Relationship Between actus reus and Mens Rea" examines the case when a defendant can be convicted even in the absence of a blameworthy state of mind.... The relationship between actus reus and mens rea is addressed by the correspondence principle....
8 Pages (2000 words) Report

Principles Mens Rea, Actus Reus

Different types of intent apply to different types of elements of the crime.... The study "Principles Mens Rea, actus reus" outlines examples of actions considered on offenses associated with stealing - stealing grapes, stealing peaches, reading magazines of which one has not paid for, removing a banana from a banana or a tomato stock, stealing nuts, and general contamination.... The four elements of crime considered are actus reus, causation, circumstance, or that described by the statute....
7 Pages (1750 words) Case Study
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us