In terms of imposing liability in criminal law it is essential to prove that the defendant has committed a guilty act whilst having a guilty state of mind. A person can’t commit a crime with only an evil thought, the same as he can’t commit a crime without doing an act. The physical element of a crime is called actus reus whereas the mental element of a crime is called mens rea. These two are vital elements in proving an offence. Without the presence of one, the prosecution can’t prove the alleged offence against the defendant and therefore the defendant must be acquitted. However in certain cases, the presence of mens rea is not required. Such offences are known as strict liability offences.
Actus reus
Actus reus is the conduct element of the offence. It consists of all the physical elements of an offence except for those which relate to …show more content…
When proving the actus reus of a crime, it is impartial to prove that the crime that the accused is allegedly guilty of, has been committed by him voluntarily. The physical act alone can’t be held liable to declare that the accused is guilty of a certain crime. The act has to be performed by him voluntarily. In Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland, Lord Denning explained: ‘the requirement that it should be voluntary act is essential……in every criminal case’. Any act that has been performed involuntarily can’t be punishable by the state of law. For example: in the case Mitchell [1983] QB 741, the defendant was trying to jump a queue where an elderly man protested his act. So, the defendant hit and pushed him, as a result the elderly man fell back on others behind him in the queue including an elderly woman who fell and broke her leg and later died. In this event, the elderly man didn’t commit the certain act voluntarily. Therefore, it was the defendant who was later charged and convicted of the woman’s
Actus reus
Actus reus is the conduct element of the offence. It consists of all the physical elements of an offence except for those which relate to …show more content…
When proving the actus reus of a crime, it is impartial to prove that the crime that the accused is allegedly guilty of, has been committed by him voluntarily. The physical act alone can’t be held liable to declare that the accused is guilty of a certain crime. The act has to be performed by him voluntarily. In Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland, Lord Denning explained: ‘the requirement that it should be voluntary act is essential……in every criminal case’. Any act that has been performed involuntarily can’t be punishable by the state of law. For example: in the case Mitchell [1983] QB 741, the defendant was trying to jump a queue where an elderly man protested his act. So, the defendant hit and pushed him, as a result the elderly man fell back on others behind him in the queue including an elderly woman who fell and broke her leg and later died. In this event, the elderly man didn’t commit the certain act voluntarily. Therefore, it was the defendant who was later charged and convicted of the woman’s