Unit 24 - Assignment 1
Introduction
For this assignment I will be describing the elements of a crime which are Mens Rea and Actus
Reus. Mens Rea is Latin for 'guilty mind' and it is the mental thinking behind the crime which has
been committed, it refers to the intentions of the person who committed the crime. For example,
when someone commits theft their intention is to permanently deprive the owner/s of the object.
Actus Reus is Latin for 'guilty act' and it can either be an act or a failure to act. For example, when
someone commits theft they must've physically taken something. The three C's of Actus Reus must
be taken into account when investigating a crime they are:
Conduct - this is the act of damaging or destroying something/someone.
Circumstances - this is the fact that the property must belong to another.
Consent - this is the resulting damage or destruction of the act.
Causation
Causation, also known as result crimes is when a consequence has come about as a result of the
Actus Reus being committed. When establishing causation the first step is to ask 'was the
defendant's act a cause in the fact of the specified consequence?' This can be answered by asking
'But for what the defendant did would the consequence have occurred?' If the answer is YES then
the result wouldn't have occurred if not for the defendant's acts and, therefore causation is
established.
A case which shows the chain of causation is the case of R v White (1910) the defendant put
cyanide into his mother's lemonade, however she died of a heart failure before she drank the
poison. The answer to the question 'But for what the defendant did would she have died' is NO she
would've died anyway. The defendant had the Actus Reus as he had put the cyanide in his mothers
drink and he also had the Mens Rea as he knew that by doing this he would kill her. He was found
guilty of attempted murder not murder because he hadn't actually caused his mother's death.
Another case which shows the chain of causation is R v Dear (1996) which is a similar case R v
Smith (1959) in this case the defendant had repeatedly slashed the victim with a knife after being
told that the victim had been sexually intimate with the defendant's 12 year old daughter. The victim
died two days later. The defendant argued that the victim had caused his own death by re-opening
his wounds and refusing to allow for the ambulance to be called, so that he bled to death. A suicide
note was also found left by the victim. As he had the Actus Reus as he had repeatedly slashed the
victim and he had the Mens Rea as he wanted to seriously harm/kill the victim his conviction was
upheld as the defendants conduct was still an operating and significant cause of the death.
A case which shows the chain of causation being broken is R v Jordan (1956) the defendant
stabbed the victim and the victim died from bronchopneumonia in hospital about a week later.
Evidence that wasn't available at the trial came to light which indicated that the bronchopneumonia
was probably caused by the victim's unusual reaction to Terramycin, which had been administered
to him even though his allergy had been discovered, and/or by an excess of intravenous fluids. The
answer to the question 'But for what the defendant did would the consequence have occurred?' is
YES however, as the death was a result of medical negligence by the doctors therefore, as the
treatment the victim received was obviously wrong and would have disallowed a jury from holding
that death was caused by the defendants actions. Due to this despite having the Actus Reus as he
had stabbed the victim and also having the Mens Rea as he'd wanted to cause harm to the victim he
was found NOT guilty of murder thus breaking the chain of causation.
In the case of R v Malcherek and Steel (1981) two separate appeals were tried together. In
Malcherek the defendant stabbed his wife and In Steel the defendant had sexually assaulted and
beaten a woman over the head with a stone. In both cases the victims had been taken to hospital
and where placed on life support and later on after showing no signs of activity in their brain stem
were switched off. The defendants argued that the doctor's actions constituted novus actus
Introduction
For this assignment I will be describing the elements of a crime which are Mens Rea and Actus
Reus. Mens Rea is Latin for 'guilty mind' and it is the mental thinking behind the crime which has
been committed, it refers to the intentions of the person who committed the crime. For example,
when someone commits theft their intention is to permanently deprive the owner/s of the object.
Actus Reus is Latin for 'guilty act' and it can either be an act or a failure to act. For example, when
someone commits theft they must've physically taken something. The three C's of Actus Reus must
be taken into account when investigating a crime they are:
Conduct - this is the act of damaging or destroying something/someone.
Circumstances - this is the fact that the property must belong to another.
Consent - this is the resulting damage or destruction of the act.
Causation
Causation, also known as result crimes is when a consequence has come about as a result of the
Actus Reus being committed. When establishing causation the first step is to ask 'was the
defendant's act a cause in the fact of the specified consequence?' This can be answered by asking
'But for what the defendant did would the consequence have occurred?' If the answer is YES then
the result wouldn't have occurred if not for the defendant's acts and, therefore causation is
established.
A case which shows the chain of causation is the case of R v White (1910) the defendant put
cyanide into his mother's lemonade, however she died of a heart failure before she drank the
poison. The answer to the question 'But for what the defendant did would she have died' is NO she
would've died anyway. The defendant had the Actus Reus as he had put the cyanide in his mothers
drink and he also had the Mens Rea as he knew that by doing this he would kill her. He was found
guilty of attempted murder not murder because he hadn't actually caused his mother's death.
Another case which shows the chain of causation is R v Dear (1996) which is a similar case R v
Smith (1959) in this case the defendant had repeatedly slashed the victim with a knife after being
told that the victim had been sexually intimate with the defendant's 12 year old daughter. The victim
died two days later. The defendant argued that the victim had caused his own death by re-opening
his wounds and refusing to allow for the ambulance to be called, so that he bled to death. A suicide
note was also found left by the victim. As he had the Actus Reus as he had repeatedly slashed the
victim and he had the Mens Rea as he wanted to seriously harm/kill the victim his conviction was
upheld as the defendants conduct was still an operating and significant cause of the death.
A case which shows the chain of causation being broken is R v Jordan (1956) the defendant
stabbed the victim and the victim died from bronchopneumonia in hospital about a week later.
Evidence that wasn't available at the trial came to light which indicated that the bronchopneumonia
was probably caused by the victim's unusual reaction to Terramycin, which had been administered
to him even though his allergy had been discovered, and/or by an excess of intravenous fluids. The
answer to the question 'But for what the defendant did would the consequence have occurred?' is
YES however, as the death was a result of medical negligence by the doctors therefore, as the
treatment the victim received was obviously wrong and would have disallowed a jury from holding
that death was caused by the defendants actions. Due to this despite having the Actus Reus as he
had stabbed the victim and also having the Mens Rea as he'd wanted to cause harm to the victim he
was found NOT guilty of murder thus breaking the chain of causation.
In the case of R v Malcherek and Steel (1981) two separate appeals were tried together. In
Malcherek the defendant stabbed his wife and In Steel the defendant had sexually assaulted and
beaten a woman over the head with a stone. In both cases the victims had been taken to hospital
and where placed on life support and later on after showing no signs of activity in their brain stem
were switched off. The defendants argued that the doctor's actions constituted novus actus
