Assess The Difference Between Actus And Mens Rea

For the prosecution to successfully prove that a defendant committed a criminal offence, they must prove both the actus reus and mens rea. Both are Latin terms and the actus reus refers to the physical elements of the crime, whereas, mens rea sets out the mental elements required. Firstly, actus reus can consist of the defendant’s conduct or their omission, and both are sufficient for the prosecution. In relation to conduct, this could mean offences such as perjury, rape or possession of drugs. For instance, in a murder case, the actus reus could be the stabbing of the victim or the firing of a gun.
On the other hand, omission relates to the failure to act by the defendant and there are a number of circumstances in which the defendant is required to act. This may be due to a statutory duty laid down in the legislation or a contractual duty if a failure to adhere to a contractual duty resulted in criminal liability. In other instances, law imposes a duty, such as when a defendant creates a dangerous situation and fails to take the requisite steps to remedy it. This was the case in R v Miller when the defendant set alight to a building and when he woke up, he failed to
This is particularly the case in strict liability cases. For a strict liability offence, the prosecution do not have to provide evidence of mens rea. These are often regulatory offences and involve breaches of health and safety. Also, some driving offences are strict liability, such as a failure to wear a seat belt or speeding. In some respect, the inclusion of strict liability offences within criminal law is controversial, as the defendant is liable despite the fact that they may not having the intention to commit a crime. Nevertheless, given the severity of the offences, the harshness of the rules are tolerated in order to provide sufficient protection for the public at