Criminal law- Actus Rea and Mens Rea - Essay Example

Criminal Law- Actus Rea and Mens Rea Mens Rea is described as "A guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent; Guilty knowledge and willfulness". (Encyclopedia of Crime & Justice, 2002) In criminal law it is the basic principle that a crime consists of a mental element and a physical element. A person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal is the mental element, and 'Actus Reas' (the act itself) is the physical element. The concept of Mens Rea started its development in the 1600s in England when judges started to say that an act alone could not create criminality unless it was adjunct with a guilty state of mind. The degree for a particular common law crime varied for Mens Rea. Murder required a malicious state of mind, whereas larceny required a felonious state of mind. Mens Rea is generally used along with the words general intent, however this creates confusion since general intent is used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. On the other hand specific intent describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required. (Answers, 2008) NEED TO ESTABLISH MENS REA IN ORDER TO SECURE A CONVICTION To secure a conviction, the prosecution side must prove that the defendant committed the crime while in a certain state of mind. The definition is specified of every crime before a person can be convicted as a prerequisite for Mens Rea. There are three states of mind which constitute the necessary Mens Rea for a criminal offence. These are intention, recklessness and negligence and are described below. (Law Teacher, 2006) Intention Direct intent is the normal situation where the consequences of a person's actions are desired. Oblique intent comes in the situation where the consequence is known by the defendant as virtually certain, although it is not desired for its own sake, and the defendant goes ahead with his actions anyway. (Law Teacher, 2006) Intention Based On Foresight of Consequences For a person to get acquitted for some charges, then that person should have the full knowledge that his/her actions would definitely result in a specific consequence. A probability that something can occur or might occur is not enough to subject a person on criminality. The Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 explains how intention or foresight must be proved by the following paragraph: "A court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances." (Law Teacher, 2006) The cases where they were applied are listed below. The relationship between foresight and intention was considered by the House of Lords in: Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025 It is important to note that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention but only evidence of intention: R v Scalley [1995] Crim LR 504. The most recent case in this area is the decision of the House of Lords in: R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103. The law says - For the prosecutors to come up with evidence that the defendant had directly intended to perform a certain action to get a specific result would be extremely difficult (R v Moloney, 1985). This is because one cannot know what is or what was inside the defendant's mind when the action was taken. Therefore in criminal law, the proof of only the foresight intent is required as opposed to direct intent. (Law Teacher, 2006) Recklessness Recklessness is taking an unjustified risk. In most cases, there is clear subjective evidence that the accused predicted but did not desire the particular outcome. When the accused committed the act, the risk of causing the given loss or damage was taken. There is always some degree of intention included with recklessness. (Hautamaki, 1951) The law says - According to the Clause 18(c) of the DCCB, recklessness can be described as a person who deliberately takes unreasonable risk with the full knowledge and comprehension of the risk that is taken. (Law Teacher, 2006) Negligence Negligence means falling below the standard of the ordinary reasonable person. This test is objective and is based on the hypothetical person involving the defendant either doing something the reasonable person would not do, or not doing something which the reasonable person would do. It doesn't matter whether the defendant was unaware that something dangerous might happen, if the "reasonable person" would have realized the risk, and taken steps to avoid it. (Hautamaki, 1951) The law says - Criminal negligence can be described in the case of R v Bateman (1925) 28 Cox's Crim Cas 33 tried for man slaughter. The judges used many words to describe the crime, including words such as 'wicked', criminal etc. but the negligence of the accused was to such an extreme extent that it "went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment." CONCLUSION "There is an assumption in law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence even if the Actus Rea that looks criminal was found." Mens Rea is still used as a basis for the law today. Though in actuality, the exact meaning has changed. The modern meaning of Mens Rea used today is narrower. Mens rea describes the state of mind or inattention that, together with its accompanying conduct, the criminal law defines as an offense. In more technical terms, the mens rea of an offense consists of those elements of the offense definition that describe the required mental state of the defendant at the time of the offense, but does not include excuse defenses or other doctrines outside the offense definition. So the original meaning differs in essence to the one we use today, however this meaning is more appropriate for the world we live in. (Robinson, 1999) WORKS CITED 1. "Mens Rea" [Internet], Answers.com, Available at , Accessed on March 11, 2008. 2. "Mens Rea" (2002), Encyclopedia of Crime & Justice, Pg. 995-1006 3. Law Teacher (2006), "MENS REA 1" [Internet], Available at , Accessed on March 11, 2008. 4. Paul Robinson (August 19, 1999), "Mens Rea" [Internet], University of Pennsylvania Law School, Available at , Accessed on March 11, 2008. 5. W. Hautamaki, (Dec., 1951) "The Element of Mens Rea in Recklessness and Criminal Negligence", Duke Bar Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Pg. 55-69 Read More