Actus reus Essays

Actus Reus is Latin for “guilty act,” referring to criminal demeanor. Specifically, intended, or feloniously neglectful action or inaction that causes detriment. Anything from a bodily assault or homicide to the obliteration of community property would be considered Actus reus. Another form would be omission as an act of criminal negligence. This includes not attempting to take action that would have prevented harm to another person. The exemption to actus reus is when the illicit

For the offence against Tom, Dave could be charged with blackmail (s.21 Theft act 1968). The actus reus of blackmail is ‘a demand that is unwarranted and made with menaces’. The demand can take any form and can be suggested or implied (Collister and Warhurst) and is complete as soon as it is made, the victim doesn’t have to receive it (Treacy v DPP). Here, there was an express demand for a repayment of £1000 from Tom to Dave. The demand must also be unwarranted, however it will be found not to be

The actus reus of rape involves the non consensual penetration of the mouth, anus or vagina of a man or woman by a man’s penis. Penetration by the penis is the key to the actus reus of rape. “Penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal.” This enshrines the pre-Sexual Offences Act decision in the case of Kaitmaki that a man who continues to have intercourse after consent is withdrawn commits the actus reus of rape. This essay focuses on the law that protects a female from rape in the

Carrie and Delia have the necessary actus reus and means rea to convict them of culpable homicide. The actus reus of culpable homicide and murder are the same: an act or omission which causes the destruction of life. To establish the mens rea of culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt , it is ‘necessary to show gross, or wicked, or criminal negligence, something amounting, or at any rate analogous, to a criminal indifference to consequences.’ The actus reus requires that the accused’s actions

wrongdoing and 2) mental aim to do a wrongdoing . Actus reus is ordinarily portrayed as a criminal exhibition that was the delayed consequence of deliberate genuine improvement. This portrays a physical activity that harms another person or damages property. Anything from a physical assault or crime to the pulverization of open property would qualify as an actus reus. Avoidance, as an exhibit of criminal indiscretion, is another appearance of actus reus. It lies on the reverse side of the reach from

Introduction First of all, a defendant will only be found guilty of a crime if the prosecution can establish two main elements of a crime, which are actus reus and the mens rea. Actus reus is the wrongful act or omission that comprises the physical component of a crime. Mens rea is a person’s awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal. For a defendant to be held liable, it has to be proved that the defendant voluntarily performed the act or omission. In Hill v Baxter , it was established

The concept of criminal failure to act is an interesting one in that in the one hand it tries to make persons to be orally and ethically responsible for the common good, on the other hand it attempts to restrict or stop criminal liability in situations in which the defendants have no control over (Sistare, 1989). The concept advocates for the understanding that the failure by someone to act in a particular situation results in the cat tagged as omission. In the case of the Sandusky rape case at the

In order for a person to be found guilty of a crime, two elements must be present which are the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (guilty mind). The first part of this essay seeks to consider the liability for homicide offences and also assess whether Jason, Welch, Ellis and Stevens have any potential defences based on the crimes they committed. P360 Will Jason be held liable for the death of pinky? Pinky suffered harm from Jason’s act, in a situation like this, we would need to look at s

or conduct of the accused’ (oxford dictionary reference) known as the Actus Reus of an offence. Mens rea is made up of four fault elements: Intention, Knowledge, Recklessness and Negligence. Establishing which category of Mens Rea an offence falls under is important in many cases where the prosecution must prove a ‘culpable state of mind’ (don’t have a reference but feel like need one) in respect to the result of the Actus Reus of an offence. Ascertaining what, and how much, the defendant foresaw

Strict Liability Offences, Fair and Just or a step to far. In a criminal trial the burden is on the prosecution to prove mens rea on the part of the accused, in doing so as to demonstrate intent, recklessness or knowledge on their part unless the crime is one of strict liability. The three types of mens rea which the courts take into consideration are set out as follows; Intent refers to the state of mind accompanying an act especially a forbidden act. It is the outline of the mental pattern which

A person is said to be criminally liable if he commits an act which the law renders illegal. Under English criminal law a person is generally not liable for an omission. The crime must be capable of being committed by omission. For example if A was drowning and B sees A drowning, there is no responsibility on B’s part to help A. Even if A ends up dying B is not liable for A’s death. He may only merely have a moral obligation to help but he cannot be charged with murder or battery. Basically,

Mental state, intention and responsibility A crime is defined as an act that is capable of being followed by criminal proceedings. In any offences, the accused should be proven on whether he has physically done the act (actus reus) or that the act has casued the offending consequences. Secondly, the accused should be assessed on whether he/she has intention to do it (mens rea). Three other forms of intent that needed to be taken into considerations are: Recklessness, Negligence and Accident. Recklessness

Mens rea is the element of a crime which alludes to what is known as the “guilty mind”. The case of R v Mohan [1976] QB 1 , the case dealing with the meaning of intention in the context of the offence of murder, James LJ clarified that intention meant ‘aim’ or ‘a decision to bring about a certain consequence’ whilst mens rea is generally related with motive what it more directly links to the notion of intention. There are two types of intention, direct intention and oblique intention .Oblique intention

According to Criminal Law and Procedure, mens rea is defined as the mental capacity a person has, and the liability or responsibility deemed by the person that commits a crime based on the criminal mindset that influences the criminal act (Hall, 2015). The term mens rea can be interpreted differently as discussed in the reading material provided and is known as a guilty mind. "It is best defined as the state of mind required to be criminally liable for a certain act", (Hall, 2015, p. 57).  One of

Crime is defined as an action which evokes dissent and constitutes an offence in society. Crime can take a number of forms which have been conceptualized by a number of sociologists. The purpose of this essay is to analyze the function of crime regarding its contribution towards social stability. The French Sociologist, Emile Durkheim, was the first to comprehensively establish a relation between social functionalism, crime and deviance. (Emile Durkheim - functional explanation) He put forward his

The mens rea is the mental element of an offence. It refers to the mental state of the accused in terms of the offence. If no mens rea is present the accused cannot be convicted with the exception of absolute or strict liability. In order for a person to be guilty of a specific crime it is expected that the defendant has the necessary mens rea.(4) ‘Intention means the conscious objective or purpose of the accused.’(1) Intention is not the same as motive or desire to achieve a particular result.

Necrophilia is described as a person having sexual feelings or performing activities that involve a corpse. Miss Emily Grierson, the protagonist in William Faulkner’s short retrospective Gothic “A Rose for Emily,” is a necrophiliac. In this Gothic work, Faulkner illustrates how isolation from society can drive someone to commit grotesque acts. Faulkner expands on the theme of loneliness in his Gothic, “A Rose for Emily,” through the interactions Emily has with the townsmen, the death of Emily’s father

Recklessness, indeed is a term used to condemn the actions of a person who is the cause of an undesirable circumstance. It features as one of four possible mental states that may constitute the mens rea of a crime. To be reckless, a person is involved with ‘’the taking of an unreasonable risk of which the risk taker is aware.’’ However, it is important to note that the risk ‘’does not have to be foreseen as highly likely to occur.’’ Recklessness, a term that is commonly featured within the criminal

In criminal law when a criminal act is alleged to have been committed, the essential requirement for the crime is that the victim was opposed to the crime. One of the available defences when a criminal act is committed is that the victim actually gave consent to the acts . The defence of consent is available to certain case that result in bodily harm which includes assault and battery. For instance, in sports there is a physical contact. Participants are deemed to have consented to the physical

AAgatha Christie shows why The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is the model of detective fiction novels by using several intimations in her book. There are two types of clues, ones that are helpful to the detective and ones that are useless. Hints and evidence that purposely mislead the reader are known as red herrings. Joan Acocella discusses Christie’s work and brings up her use of red herrings in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, commenting, “...that is, when the occurrence is trivial but nonetheless mentioned—this