2. Actus reus

2019 ◽  
pp. 37-81
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Legal Reform ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Problem Type ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Type Question

This chapter provides an overview of actus reus, which refers to the ‘external elements’ of an offence. An actus reus is not simply about the movements of the accused, that is, her conduct. Rather, it includes any offence requirement that is external from the mind of the accused: anything that is not mens rea. Before discussing the elements that form the actus reus, this chapter considers the distinction between actus reus and mens rea. It then describes the three elements of actus reus: conduct, circumstances, and results. It also explains the categories of actus reus offences, omissions liability, and causation before concluding with sections that outline potential options for legal reform and a structure for analysing the actus reus of an offence when applying the law in a problem-type question. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with a brief summary of the main facts and judgment.

2. Actus reus

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Legal Reform ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Problem Type ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Type Question

This chapter provides an overview of actus reus, which refers to the ‘external elements’ of an offence. An actus reus is not simply about the movements of the accused, that is, her conduct. Rather, it includes any offence requirement that is external from the mind of the accused: anything that is not mens rea. Before discussing the elements that form the actus reus, this chapter considers the distinction between actus reus and mens rea. It then describes the three elements of actus reus: conduct, circumstances, and results. It also explains the categories of actus reus offences, omissions liability, and causation before concluding with sections that outline potential options for legal reform and a structure for analysing the actus reus of an offence when applying the law in a problem-type question. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with a brief summary of the main facts and judgment.

2. Actus reus

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-84
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Legal Reform ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Problem Type ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law ◽  
Type Question

This chapter provides an overview of actus reus, which refers to the ‘external elements’ of an offence. These external elements do not simply relate to D’s conduct. Rather, as we will see, the actus reus of an offence includes any offence elements outside of the fault element (‘mens rea’) of the offence. Before discussing the elements that form the actus reus, this chapter considers the distinction between actus reus and mens rea. It then describes the three elements of actus reus: conduct, circumstances, and results. It also explains the categories of actus reus offences, omissions liability, and causation before concluding with sections that outline potential options for legal reform and a structure for analysing the actus reus of an offence when applying the law in a problem-type question. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with a brief summary of the main facts and judgment.

4. Interaction of actus reus and mens rea

2019 ◽  
pp. 127-145
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Correspondence Principle ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Problem Type ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law

This chapter focuses on the interaction between actus reus and mens rea in proving criminal liability. It first considers how actus reus and mens rea relate to one another within the structure of an offence before discussing the issues that also emerge when applying offence requirements to a set of facts. As an example, it explains how every element (conduct, circumstance, and result) of an offence includes an actus reus requirement and a corresponding mens rea requirement. It also examines the correspondence principle and the doctrine of transferred malice, along with the coincidence principle. Finally, it outlines potential options for legal reform and a structure for analysing the actus reus and mens rea of an offence when applying the law in problem-type questions. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with brief summaries of the main facts and judgments.

3. Mens rea

2019 ◽  
pp. 82-126
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Problem Type ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law ◽  
Type Question ◽  
Legal Meaning

This chapter provides an overview of mens rea, loosely translated as ‘guilty mind’. Whereas the actus reus of an offence focuses on the accused’s conduct, the results of that conduct, and the circumstances in which it takes place (external elements), mens rea focuses on what is going on in the accused’s mind (internal elements). The chapter first considers the elements of criminal liability under mens rea versus actus reus before discussing the legal meaning of central mens rea terms such as ‘intention’, ‘negligence’, ‘dishonesty’, and ‘recklessness’ and how these terms work in the context of a whole offence. It also describes certain offences that require actus reus elements with no corresponding mens rea and vice versa. Finally, it outlines a structure for analysing the mens rea of an offence when applying the law in a problem-type question. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter.

4. Interaction of actus reus and mens rea

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Correspondence Principle ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Problem Type ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law

This chapter focuses on the interaction between actus reus and mens rea in proving criminal liability. It first considers how actus reus and mens rea relate to one another within the structure of an offence before discussing the issues that also emerge when applying offence requirements to a set of facts. As an example, it explains how every element (conduct, circumstance, and result) of an offence includes an actus reus requirement and a corresponding mens rea requirement. It also examines the correspondence principle and the doctrine of transferred malice, along with the coincidence principle. Finally, it outlines potential options for legal reform and a structure for analysing the actus reus and mens rea of an offence when applying the law in problem-type questions. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with brief summaries of the main facts and judgments.

3. Mens rea

2021 ◽  
pp. 85-129
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Mens Rea ◽  
Problem Type ◽  
State Of Mind ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law ◽  
Type Question ◽  
Legal Meaning

This chapter provides an overview of mens rea, loosely translated as ‘guilty mind’. Whereas the concept of actus reus focusses on the external elements of an offence, mens rea focusses on state of mind or fault. The mens rea of the offence describes the fault element with which D acted: D intended, believed, foresaw as a risk of the proscribed element; and so on. The chapter first considers how offences differ in the role mens rea plays. For some offences a mens rea element may be required in relation to each actus reus element; for other offences there are actus reus elements that do not have a corresponding mens rea and vice versa. The chapter moves on to discuss the legal meaning of central mens rea terms such as ‘intention’, ‘negligence’, ‘dishonesty’, and ‘recklessness’. Finally, it outlines reform debates, and a structure for analysing the mens rea of an offence when applying the law in a problem-type question. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter.

4. Interaction of actus reus and mens rea

2021 ◽  
pp. 130-149
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Correspondence Principle ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Problem Type ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law

This chapter focuses on the interaction between actus reus and mens rea in proving criminal liability. It first considers how actus reus and mens rea relate to one another within the structure of an offence before discussing the issues that also emerge when applying offence requirements to a set of facts. As an example, it explains how every element (conduct, circumstance, and result) of an offence includes an actus reus requirement and a potential corresponding mens rea requirement. It also examines the correspondence principle and the doctrine of transferred malice, along with the coincidence principle. Finally, it outlines potential options for legal reform and a structure for analysing the actus reus and mens rea of an offence when applying the law in problem-type questions. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with brief summaries of the main facts and judgments.

3. Mens rea

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Problem Type ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law ◽  
Type Question ◽  
Legal Meaning

This chapter provides an overview of mens rea, loosely translated as ‘guilty mind’. Whereas the actus reus of an offence focuses on the accused’s conduct, the results of that conduct, and the circumstances in which it takes place (external elements), mens rea focuses on what is going on in the accused’s mind (internal elements). The chapter first considers the elements of criminal liability under mens rea versus actus reus before discussing the legal meaning of central mens rea terms such as ‘intention’, ‘negligence’, ‘dishonesty’, and ‘recklessness’ and how these terms work in the context of a whole offence. It also describes certain offences that require actus reus elements with no corresponding mens rea and vice versa. Finally, it outlines a structure for analysing the mens rea of an offence when applying the law in a problem-type question. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter.

The basic issue surrounds whether the law has been broken. We have been told Mary has been charged with theft under s 1 of the Theft Act. We are to assume that the three statements provided containing all of the information in this scenario have been produced just for us to read and work on. For the purposes of this exercise we will assume that these statements were produced in ways not calling into doubt their admissibility or credibility. This means therefore that we only have to concentrate on their probative value. (What do they prove?) The seven point approach of Twining and Miers will be used. 1 Standpoint: the standpoint of the Chart is that of the author of this book demonstrating the Wigmore Chart Method for the purposes of demonstrating the method and argument construction. 2 Stages 2, 3 and 4: relate to setting up the propositions and then key listing and charting. The impossibility of approaching each task in an isolated way is immediately perceived as we are going to work from statements. We have to find out the facts before we can draft the UP, PP, and interim probanda. Task: so that you can appreciate the levels of analysis go back to the statements and highlight the key words and phrases that begin to allow you to break into them and locate the story, and the law. Then try to give answers to the following questions: (1) What are the relevant facts? (2) What key phrases in the statements give you clues as to the application of the law? (3) Can you construct the deductive argument for the prosecution? (4) Can you construct the inductive argument for the prosecution? (5) Can you construct the opposing inductive argument for the defence? (6) Are there any conditions of doubt in your mind surrounding the wording of s1(1) of the Theft Act which may apply? (For example questions surrounding the presence of both mens rea and actus reus.) DO NOT PROCEED UNTIL YOU HAVE ANSWERED QUESTIONS (1)–(6).

2012 ◽  
pp. 253-254
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Key Words And Phrases ◽  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Probative Value ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law ◽  
Key Phrases

11. General inchoate offences

2021 ◽  
pp. 438-493
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Legal Reform ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Actus Reus

This chapter deals with general inchoate offences. A person’s conduct may be inchoate (‘just begun’, ‘undeveloped’), but also deserving of criminalisation. The chapter is structured around the three general inchoate offences, namely: attempt, conspiracy, and assisting or encouraging. It explains the actus reus and mens rea of each of these offences, along with specific defences. It also looks at double inchoate liability, substantive offences in an inchoate form, and potential options for legal reform concerning the actus reus of attempts, the mens rea of attempts and conspiracy, and assisting and encouraging. Finally, the chapter discusses the application of general inchoate offences within problem questions. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with brief summaries of the main facts and judgments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document