Actus Reus

THE FACULTY OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW I UNIT 4 ACTUS *REUS INTRODUCTION The cardinal doctrine of English Law is that an Act does not of itself constitute guilt unless the mind is guilty – Actus non facit recum nisi mens sit rea. The maxim draws attention to the 2 essential elements of a crime which are: ( 1) The physical element or the _actus _reus – the so – called “condition of illegality “ (2) The mental element or the mens rea – the “condition of the mind “ The general rule is that for all crimes save for certain statutory exceptions ex. strict liability offences the prosecution must prove both. R v Deller (1952) Generally the two must coincide that is there should be coincidence of actus reus and mens rea. Haughton v Smith (1975) AC 467 pages 491- 2 “An act does not make a man guilty unless his mind be also guilty.” The actus reus includes all the elements of the definition of a crime except the accused’s mental element. It is too narrow to define the concept only in terms of “acts” therefore it includes” Acts Omissions A criminal state of affairs ACTS An exception to this rule is where the act was done in a case of self –induced intoxication and the crime is a case of basic intent as for crimes of specific intent it is still a defence. R v Lipman (1970) 1 QB 152 approved in DPP v Majewski (1977) AC 443 AUTOMATISM The defence can be said to involve 3 elements: Total destruction of voluntary control Caused by an external factor Defendant was not responsible for his condition Total destruction of voluntary control It is necessary to demonstrate a total destruction of voluntary control. It is not sufficient to show that the Accused had only impaired control over his Acts. See AG reference (No 2 of 1992)Nor is it enough to simply show that the Accused did not control his actions or did not know what he was doing if he could have controlled his actions. What