ACTUS REUS
Actus Reus + Mens Rea - Defence = Crime
A defendant is found guilty if they have the Actus Reus, the Mens Rea and they aren't
entitled of a defence
● An act doesn’t make someone guilty unless their mind is guilty
● Actus reus (external elements) and Mens rea (fault elements)
● Actus Reus is everything else except Mens Rea
Criminal liability
Actus Reus + Mens Rea + absence of defence = Criminal Liability
→ for you to get a conviction, you need both Mens rea and Actus rea
Conduct = you need to do something (terminology: uses)
The actus reus may consist of one or more of the following forms:
● State of affairs
● Conduct of the defendant (act or omission)
● Circumstances in which the conduct takes place
● Consequences of the conduct
Omissions
Omission- fail to do something
Liability for omissions
● Starting point: No liability for omissions (no liability when you fail to do
something, failing to do something isn't a crime)
E.g A intends to kill B by stabbing him but a chandelier falls on B and kills him. A
is NOT liable for B’s death → A didn’t kill B (there was Mens rea; A had the
intention to kill B, but there wasn’t Actus reus
● Problems in imposing liability for omissions:
❏ Identify a duty to act
❏ No general liability for omissions, but you’re liable for an omission only for these
special exceptions
❏ (1) Liability imposed by statute
❏ (2) Liability arising from a contract → R v Pittwood (1902)
❏ (3) Liability arising from a special relationship → Gibbons v Proctor (1918)
, ❏ (4) Liability arising from an assumption of responsibility (you assumed
responsibility for another person and if you fail to act then you’re liable) → Stone v
Dobinson (1977)
❏ (5) Liability arising as a result of antecedent conduct
(you’re liable for an omission if a duty has risen as a result of your previous
conduct) → Fagan v MPC (1969)- continuing act so not omissions liability
and R v Miller (1983) - House of Lords: duty theory imposes omissions liability
Fagan v MPC (1969)
● Facts: Fagin was stopped by the police officer and he stopped on the officer’s
foot. The officer asked him to get off his foot but he refused. Eventually, he
reversed the car
● The problem:
❏ The difference in time → Fagan parks on policeman’s foot, accident
(potential Actus Reus but no Mens rea)
❏ When Fagan is told to move, he refuses → Potential Mens rea but no
Actus reus
❏ At the start there’s Actus reus of assault and no Mens rea but at the end
there’s no Actus reus but there’s Mens rea of assault → you don't have
both at the same time
❏ Actus reus and Mens rea must exist at the same time to be liable
❏ It was agreed that an omission cannot establish an assault
❏ Held that Fagan’s crime was not the refusal to move the car but having
driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act →
established a continual act of battery
❏ The Act of parking on officer’s foot and the refusal to move was a
continuing act → liability imposed as soon as mens rea formed
(continuation of a singular act)
Continuing Act Theory
● This doesn’t impose liability for an omission instead it ensures that the actus reus
and mens rea do coincide (occuring at the same time)
Actus Reus + Mens Rea - Defence = Crime
A defendant is found guilty if they have the Actus Reus, the Mens Rea and they aren't
entitled of a defence
● An act doesn’t make someone guilty unless their mind is guilty
● Actus reus (external elements) and Mens rea (fault elements)
● Actus Reus is everything else except Mens Rea
Criminal liability
Actus Reus + Mens Rea + absence of defence = Criminal Liability
→ for you to get a conviction, you need both Mens rea and Actus rea
Conduct = you need to do something (terminology: uses)
The actus reus may consist of one or more of the following forms:
● State of affairs
● Conduct of the defendant (act or omission)
● Circumstances in which the conduct takes place
● Consequences of the conduct
Omissions
Omission- fail to do something
Liability for omissions
● Starting point: No liability for omissions (no liability when you fail to do
something, failing to do something isn't a crime)
E.g A intends to kill B by stabbing him but a chandelier falls on B and kills him. A
is NOT liable for B’s death → A didn’t kill B (there was Mens rea; A had the
intention to kill B, but there wasn’t Actus reus
● Problems in imposing liability for omissions:
❏ Identify a duty to act
❏ No general liability for omissions, but you’re liable for an omission only for these
special exceptions
❏ (1) Liability imposed by statute
❏ (2) Liability arising from a contract → R v Pittwood (1902)
❏ (3) Liability arising from a special relationship → Gibbons v Proctor (1918)
, ❏ (4) Liability arising from an assumption of responsibility (you assumed
responsibility for another person and if you fail to act then you’re liable) → Stone v
Dobinson (1977)
❏ (5) Liability arising as a result of antecedent conduct
(you’re liable for an omission if a duty has risen as a result of your previous
conduct) → Fagan v MPC (1969)- continuing act so not omissions liability
and R v Miller (1983) - House of Lords: duty theory imposes omissions liability
Fagan v MPC (1969)
● Facts: Fagin was stopped by the police officer and he stopped on the officer’s
foot. The officer asked him to get off his foot but he refused. Eventually, he
reversed the car
● The problem:
❏ The difference in time → Fagan parks on policeman’s foot, accident
(potential Actus Reus but no Mens rea)
❏ When Fagan is told to move, he refuses → Potential Mens rea but no
Actus reus
❏ At the start there’s Actus reus of assault and no Mens rea but at the end
there’s no Actus reus but there’s Mens rea of assault → you don't have
both at the same time
❏ Actus reus and Mens rea must exist at the same time to be liable
❏ It was agreed that an omission cannot establish an assault
❏ Held that Fagan’s crime was not the refusal to move the car but having
driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act →
established a continual act of battery
❏ The Act of parking on officer’s foot and the refusal to move was a
continuing act → liability imposed as soon as mens rea formed
(continuation of a singular act)
Continuing Act Theory
● This doesn’t impose liability for an omission instead it ensures that the actus reus
and mens rea do coincide (occuring at the same time)
