Criminal Law

The elements of crime

The criminal law does not seek to punish people for their evil thoughts; an accused must be proved to be responsible for conduct or the existence of a state of affairs prohibited by the criminal law before liability may arise. Whether liability arises will depend further on the accused’s sated of mind at the time; usually intention or recklessness is required.

Actus reus

Each crime must be looked at individually to determine what must be proved to establish its actusreus. It is necessary to know which elements of the definition of an offence comprise the actusreus. The term actusreus has a much wider meaning then the ‘act’ prohibited by the law it implies. The actusreus in criminal law consists of all elements of a crime other than the state of mind of the defendant. In particular, actusreus may consist of: conduct, result, a state of affairs or an omission.

Proving actusreus – A previously stated, criminal law does not seek to punish people for evil thoughts or intentions. If defendant D has the mensrea for the paticular offence but does not bring about the actusrus, he is not guilty of committing that offence [Deller]

Conduct must be voluntary:

Where the actusreus on offence requires conduct on the part of the accused, whether and act or omission, liability will only occur when the conduct is willed. It is not sufficient that the accused by his bodily movements performed the prohibited conduct or brought about the prohibited consequence defined by the actusreus of the offence.

In  Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland. Lord Denning stated that the ‘requirement that it should be a voluntary act is essential, not only in a murder case, but also in every criminal case’. In offences requiring mensrea, if the conduct is not willed there will also be an absence of mensrea on the part of the accused, but even if the offence is one of strict liability, requiring no proof of mensrea, it is still necessary to prove that the accused’s conduct was voluntary. [Kay v Butterworth; Hill v Baxter; Bell; Leicester v pearson.

Omissions:

Generally the common law was concerned to prohibit particular results from occurring and it punished an accused for causing the prohibited result by his positive acts. Gradually the courts came to recognize limited liability for omissions where a duty to act could be implied, the accused failed to act, and the prohibited result ensued.  Not all omissions will give rise to liability, liability will depend on there being a duty, recognized by the law, to act or intervene in the circumstances.

1. Statutory duty:

In some situations there is a statutory duty to act. Failure to provide breath specimen; RTA 1988, Failure to keep a dangerous dog under control in a public place; Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

 2. Contractual duty:

 If a person owes a contractual duty to act, then a failure to meet this contractual duty may result in criminal liability: R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37

3. Duty imposed by law

 The actus reus can be committed by an omission where there exists a duty imposed by law. There are three situations in which a duty may be imposed by law. These are where the defendant creates a dangerous situation, where there has been a voluntary assumption of responsibility and misconduct in a public office. Additionally an omission may be classified as part of a continuing act.

         

• Creating a dangerous situation and failing to put it right:

R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 

• ·         Assumption of responsibility:

R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354  

• ·         Misconduct in a public office: 

  R v Dytham [1979] Q.B. 722,  

• ·         Duty arising out of relationship

Gibbins and Proctor (1918 13 Cr App R 134,

Actus Reus At a Glance