Mens Rea & Actus Rea Worksheet 2 PDF

Actt1s Reus and Mens Rea unless his m ind is Actus non facit reum, nisi mens it rea - 'an act does not make a man guilty also guilty' Actus reus + mens rea + absence of a defenc e= crime/o ffence Actus reu.s =guilty Act= phy...

Actt1s Reus and Mens Rea unless his m ind is Actus non facit reum, nisi mens it rea - 'an act does not make a man guilty also guilty' Actus reus + mens rea + absence of a defenc e= crime/o ffence Actus reu.s =guilty Act= physical elemen t of the crime Mens rea = guilty Mind = mental elemen t of the crime Actus reus consists of: Condu ct/ ac-t Result Stat e of affairs Omission Condu ct - where the act done or omission is criminal, not the result Pequ ry Blackm atl Rape Theft Possession of firearm s , prohibi te d drug Result - Where the conduc t of Its own may not be criminal but the result is. The prosec ution has to p.rove the accuse d action brough t about the result - folfow the chain to t he result. Murde r Mansla ughte r Assaul t Battery A result rnmf- requires three fa ctors in order for the accused to be found guil ty {withou t cons iderin g any defen se ) en the act done and the result. I. There has to be a chain of causa tion in fact betwe the act done and the resul t. There has to be a chain of causa tion In law be t ween 1. 3. There must be no break in the chain of causation and the result. Cham of Caus ation in fact betwe en the act done n in moth er's drink. She died but the R v Whit e [1970 ] 2 KB 124, accused here put poiso guilty of murd er but attem pted murd er. cau se of death w as not po ison ing, hence son not t. Charn of causa t ion in law betwe en act done and resul sole or only cause, nor neces sarily The accus ed 's acti on must be g_cause, not the n must be more than negl igible , it requ ires su bstan t ial or main cau se. The accused's contr ibutio r,ore t har. triflin g contri butio n to death. deceased were car racing and collid ed R v Kims ey [1996 ] Crim. LR 35, accused and the ng his death. Accused was charg ed with and ; endin g the decea sed into anoth er car causi Direc tion to the jury was uphe ld on appe al - convi cted of causi ng death by dange rous drivin g. the defen dant had caused the death even if Judge had direc te d t he jury that they could find was the princi pal, or subst antia l cause of th e t n e 1 vvere not sure that the defen dant' s drivin g thing more than a oeat ,. so long as t hey were sure it was the cause and that there was some shgrv or a tri fli ng link. A break in th e chain of causa tion. must be no oth er even t to r remthe time of the act ion of the accused to the resul t there br e; d" the cha in of causa tion if the defen dant is going to be liable for the resul t. An even t which s.- New interv en in g act bre,; ks th(' chain rs referr e d to as novu s act us interv enien NO\.rus Actus interv enlen s can be cause d by: ~ 1. Act ions of the victim f'J 2. Actions of a third party ~ 3. Natu ra l e ve nts Act ion s of the victim  Where the accused... accus d puts th e victim in fe ar of harm and the victim dies trying to escape ' the -e may be I II. foreseeab le. ega Y responsible where the victims response was reasonable and Re ad th e · d. JU gments tn the following cases: R v Williams & Dav,s. (1992] 2 All ER 183 - The accused' picked up the victim who later jumped f rom the vehicl e d d' d f.... an 1e ram h,s tnJunes. They were charged with manslaughte r and were convicted They appe d.. d' f.·. a Ie a11 eging a m,s irection to the jury by the judge. The material portion 0 th e d irection stated "...... what he was frightened of was robbery, that this was going to be taken from him by force, and the measure of force can be taken from his reaction to it. The prosec~t ion suggest that if he is prepared to get out of a moving car, then it was a very serious th reat 1nvolv1ng him in the risk of, as he saw it, serious injury." Court of appeal quashed the conviction as there was lack of evidence as to the nature of the t h rea t. R v Roberts (1971] EWCA Crim Court of Appeal - Woma n caught ride with the accused at 3 am in morning. He made sexual advances toward her. She jumped from t he moving car and suffered bruises and injury. He argued that her jump was a novus actus snterveniens. He was convicted. Court found that 'where the 'J1ct1m's acti ons were a na tura l re:.ult c.f the oeferdar t s ac tions 1i. matt ers not whet her th e de fendan t could fore see the resul t Only where the ,nctim':, ac:ior·.s were ,o daft or un expected that no reasonable rnan cou ld have expected it would t here tea IJ·"'a" "'t"r ci'· a1 , o f cai..,at1on.' R v Blaue [1975) 1 WLR 1411 Jehovah's witness lady stabbed - refused a blood transfusion · died Wha t was t he ope rating cause of the death, the wound. Discussion on 'thin skull' or 'egg shell' pn n c,ple. R v Kennedy {2002) 1 AC 269, also 2007 provided heroin for victim who injected himself and di ed K wa$ f,rst convicted of manslaught er but won appeal on that charge. To supply is not the s.ame as t o 1nJ e ct Actions of a th ird party ;um an:reld Paggert (l 983J 76 Cr App R 279 pregnant gi rl kill ed by police while being used 0 , bo ;frtend Boyfriend cha rged with he r death. Conviction stood. ~ -'7t~ \ (l. 6 w,1- '1 ~p(>LM- · OtJ}r:Jl to , Jordan (l956) 40 Cr App R 152 pa lpable medical treatment (illlergy to antibi oti cs) w as th e novt.1!o actu~  brain dead, App R 173 both wom en on life supp ort R v Malc here k and Steel (198 1) 73 Cr nts were alrea dy brain dead. doct ors unpl ugge d. Not novus actus as patie Natu ral Events sure , o n and leavi ng him whe re is dies from expo It is ms1gn 1fica nt that 1f John wou nds a pers sfully argue novus actus inter veni ens. infec rton , or rising tide, John cann ot su cces Vict im d ied m abou t the head, pu t body over a cliff. Thab o Meli v R [195 4) 1 All ER 373 hit victi from exposure. Conv i cted of murd er. Om ission d act has crim es are com mitte d whe re a proh ibite Gen erall y, the com mon law prov ides that ted that in lize an omis sion. The law has appr ecia been com mitte d and is not usual to pena as crim es in as harm and have recognized omis sion s ce rta in spec ified cases an omis sion is just t he follo wing circu msta nces : a) St at utor y Duty b ) Con tract u al Duty l tion, assu mpti on of resp onsi bil ity, fami lia cl Du ty im posed by law - creating a dangerous situa r. re lat onsh Ip, misc on duct of a publ ic office See Stat utes : Road Traff ic Act s8, s42c Gibb ins and Proc t.or (191 8) Cr App R 134 Sto ne v Oob inso n 2 AJI ER 341 Air~ dal e NHS Trus t v Blan d (199 3) AC 789 ciga rette , M wen t to othe r room Mill. er [198 3} 1 AU ER 978 matt ress lit by unat tend ed, man cros sing kille d Pittw ood (190 2) 19 TLR 37 let train gate R v Oyrh am (197 9) 69 Cr App R 387 R v Fagan Rea ding s/ Art icles l law (1 984 ) 4 leg.i i ~tud i es 88 Smi th JC , LJa bif ity for omissions in crim ina. Ju st. Ethi c~ 18 I 'J~ L Mur phy, G. Jeffe rie , Go rr on Actus Rll' u ~ 10 Crim  UNIVERSITY OF THE BAHAMAS CRIMINAL LAW I WORKSHEET 28 FALL 2024 MENS REA Mens Rea - guilty mind , ssly, know ingly, dishonesth/, fraud ulent ly, maliciously U suail v referr ed in statu te as inten t ionally, reckle negligently fntention See s 12 o f the Pena l Code Bahama s s :~ ll'lten t ,on- can be direc t or indire ct consequences and conse quenc es are Direc t inten t · t he defen da nt is se t to achieve the house and shoot s him. d es,re d.eg Peter inten d ing to kil l John, goes to his R v Byrne [1960) 2 QB 396 the re sult. Indire ct inten t/ o blique foresi ght but not desiring Woot fin (1998 ) UKHL 28 0 l