Essential Elements of a Crime - Essay Example

Under our scenario, it is evident that conduct of Stephen of punching Vincent in the stomach is, the actus reus of battery. Battery in itself is unlawful taking into consideration that it is often meant at hurting the other party intentionally. In other words, Stephens’s unlawful offensive physical contact against Vincent is tantamount to a criminal offence. Commission acts is a significant proof for the actus reus of a crime. The case at hand can also be examined from causation point of view whereby action of the defendant resulted on a particular consequence.

For instance, it can be established that Stephen’s act of punching Vincent was the major cause of Vincent’s illness. This clearly proves that in case a definition of the actus reus calls for a proof of an occurrence of a particular consequences then the prosecutor carries the responsibility of proving that the defendant’s conduct directly caused the consequences. For instance, if the prosecutor believes that Stephen conduct of battery was the reasonable cause of Vincent death then he/she has to prove this assertion.

A conduct in criminal law does not need to be a commission only but also omission. V asserts that Clarkson (2005: 102) Omission refers to failure to take a positive action and consequently results in injury. Under general common law not only in the United Kingdom but also in other countries practicing common law, no individual can be held criminally liable for an act of omission. However, there are exceptions to omission rule such as in cases where there is: statutory duty, contractual obligation, voluntary assumption of responsibility, duty due to defendants previous conduct, and public duty.

Failure to act and or respond positively to the above exceptions can result to committing actus reus by omission. In our scenario Stephen was guilty of committing the actus reus of omission. This claim can be justified by the fact that he failed respond to his prior act of causing bodily harm to Vincent and consequently led to victim’s death. Under the common law defendant is often expected to correct a dangerous situation, which he/she is directly responsible for its occurrence (Emanuel, 2007: 95).

Instead of helping Vincent who was, gasping for air on the floor Stephen just chose to run away even after punching him. Meanwhile Jim cannot be held criminally liable for committing actus reus of omission taking into consideration that he was under any statutory or contractual duty to help Vincent and there his inaction cannot attract any penalty under common law. Task 2: principles of novus actus interveniens and the ‘egg shell rule’ Principle of novus actus interveniens is widely used in the context of causation and it is used to explain interference with the chain of causation or to mean 'a new intervening act' (Hodgson, & Lewthwaite, 2007: 61).

The chain of causation in criminal law refers to the series of events triggered by the defendant that leads to a particular event and consequent injury. For instance, it can be established through a post-mortem that a serious stab wounds is the major cause of a victim’s death. The relationship between a guilty action and its consequences is an important premise for establishing guilt and final liability not only in