Actus reus and mens rea

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 447.

The actus reus of an offence is one of the two principle elements of criminal liability. It means “the unlawful act”, but also incorporates other factors.

The basic maxim applicable to criminal law is: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (Акт не делает человека виновным, если ум не быть также виновны ) which means: an act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is also guilty.

Therefore, there are two fundamental elements to a crime: a physical element known as actus reus and a mental element known as mens rea.

Actus reusimplies conduct, circumstance and consequence(positive or negative).

Mens reaimplies mental elements like negligence, intention/knowledge, recklessness, special mental states.

Before a person can be convicted of a crime it is necessary for the prosecution to prove both elements, e.g.:

a) that a certain event or state of affairs which is forbidden by the criminal law has been caused by the person's conduct;

b) that his conduct was accompanied by the necessary mens rea to establish the offence;

It is quite clear that the burden of proving these essential elements of any offence rests upon the prosecution who must prove the existence of both elements beyond reasonable doubt.

An unlawful intention may exist by itself, however this is not punishable: the criminal law does not punish for guilty mind alone.An actus reus must be established in each case, if there is no actus reus there can be no crime.

The differences between these can be explained by using the crime of murder as an example.

In English law there is a rather long common law definition of murder: the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's Peace, with malice aforethought, so that the victim dies within a year and a day.

Malice aforethought refers to the mens rea of the crime and is a way of saying that the murderer intended to commit a crime. Of course, the court can never know exactly what was in the head of the killer at the time of the killing, so it has the difficult task of deciding what his intentions must have been. The judgments in many recent cases show that English law is constantly developing its definition of intent.

There is a different definition of mens rea for each crime. Sometimes the defendant must have intended to do a particular thing. In murder, however, it is interesting that the defendant need not have intended to kill, but just to have wounded someone seriously. He need not even have had a direct intention; in some cases, a defendant has been found guilty if he killed someone because of recklessness — not caring about the dangers.

In deciding if the defendant's act caused death, the court must be sure that the act was a substantial cause of the result. In the 1983 case of Pagett, the defendant held a girl in front of him to prevent police from firing at him! But he himself shot at a policeman and one of the policemen fired back accidentally killing the girl. The court decided that the defendant could have foreseen such a result when he shot at the policeman from behind the girl and, as a result, his act was a substantial cause of the death.

In some cases doing nothing at all may be considered an actus reus, such as in the 1918 case of R. vs. Gibbons and Proctor, in which a child starved to death because his father did not feed him.

In general, if the prosecution fails to prove either actus or mens, the court must decide there was no crime and the case is over. However, there are a small number of crimes for which no mens rea need be proved.