Basic Actus reus and mens rea
General offences- how is guilt established?
Find definition of law from legislation or common law
Break down into actus reus and mens rea
AR-guilty act or omission- d’s conduct, its results of circumstances of d
MR- guilty mind- internal elements relating to d’s mind or fault.
Criminal Damage Act 1971:
S1(1) “A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property
belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being
reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be
guilty of an offence.”
AR is conduct, circumstances or results. Conduct crimes or result crimes
(consequences).
MR is d’s state of mind or way they do something. Intentionally, recklessly, knowing,
believing.
AR AND MR MUST COINCIDE.
Continuing acts so they coincide:
Fagan v MPC [1969]- no MR until after AR occurred so no coincidence
Thabo Meli v The Queen [1954]- had MR but victim didn’t die so AR wasn’t complete
when was committed. MR to dispose of body not to kill. ‘unless all the events can be
viewed as one transaction or impossible to divide up’.
R v le Brun (1992)- no intervening act, concealment of crime.
General offences- how is guilt established?
Find definition of law from legislation or common law
Break down into actus reus and mens rea
AR-guilty act or omission- d’s conduct, its results of circumstances of d
MR- guilty mind- internal elements relating to d’s mind or fault.
Criminal Damage Act 1971:
S1(1) “A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property
belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being
reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be
guilty of an offence.”
AR is conduct, circumstances or results. Conduct crimes or result crimes
(consequences).
MR is d’s state of mind or way they do something. Intentionally, recklessly, knowing,
believing.
AR AND MR MUST COINCIDE.
Continuing acts so they coincide:
Fagan v MPC [1969]- no MR until after AR occurred so no coincidence
Thabo Meli v The Queen [1954]- had MR but victim didn’t die so AR wasn’t complete
when was committed. MR to dispose of body not to kill. ‘unless all the events can be
viewed as one transaction or impossible to divide up’.
R v le Brun (1992)- no intervening act, concealment of crime.
