Law

There are five main elements of crime which include Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Causation, and Concurrence. This essay however looks at the two key elements of crime which are Actus Reus and Mens Rea.

Actus Reus is a Latin term that is used in criminal law and refers to actual act of crime which has been committed by an accused person. Actus Reus consists of a number of elements which are both the circumstances and the consequences surrounding liability associated with that particular crime. For a person to be held liable of a crime the Actus Reus must be voluntary. This means that the act of crime must have been done out of lack of control on the part of the accused person. Men Rea on other hand is the mental element of the accused person. Usually the court in deciding the liability of an accused person there must be evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person had a guilty mind. This means that the accused person must have had the intention to commit that particular crime. This discussion looks at a practical scenario while carefully examining the presence of the two elements of crime and the possible defense available to each case.

Looking at the practical scenario, Amelia is the mother of a three month old baby. Bill, the husband of Amelia punched her due to the persistent cry of the child. Bill upon punching her later fell asleep. Amelia, his wife, went to the kitchen got some white spirit and poured it on him then set him ablaze. Bill sustained sever burns and after a few days he succumbed to these injuries and died. Amelia has been charged for the death of Bill. The court will look at a couple of elements in order to identify if Amelia is responsible for the death of Bill or not.

As already mentioned for Actus Reus to be said to be in existence, the act done must be voluntary. This means that the accused persons must be in such a state of mind as to be aware of the nature of act that they engage themselves in. In this particular case Amelia is charged with the murder of her husband Bill. However according to the facts of the case Amelia had taken a double dose of medication before setting Bill on fire. This means that her state of mind at the time of the action was altered. For this reason the court will rule that Amelia lacked the intention to kill her husband (the Mens Rea part of the crime is absent). This will thus lead to a mitigation of the charge from murder to manslaughter. Amelia can then defend herself by citing intoxication. Amelia may also rely on the defence of provocation by arguing that she acted in that manner due to provocation by her husband. The fact that her husband always beat her because the child was crying may have provoked Amelia into setting him ablaze. Provocation may thus act as a defense for Amelia. Amelia may also use the defence of diminished responsibility whereby she may argue that although they accept committing the crime they should not be held responsible as their mental capacity was impaired.

The second case is where Amelia is charged with the injury and subsequent death of her baby. According to the facts of the case Amelia threw the baby out of the window to save him from the inferno and with the hope that Claude would catch the baby. Amelia will thus face charges of being reckless for throwing her baby. Although the Actus Reus in this case is present, there is absence of Mens Rea because Amelia had no intention whatsoever of hurting her baby. She therefore is not guilty of the crime as one of the key elements of the crime is absent.  Amelia can also use the defense of voluntary assumption of reliance or responsibility. In this case Amelia can argue that she assumed that Claude would catch the baby.

The next question is, can Claude be held liable for the injury and subsequent death of Amelias baby According to the law a person can be held criminally liable for failing to act if one was under a legal duty to act. This duty may arise from a contract, from a public duty, from voluntary assumption of reliance or responsibility and duty to earlier conduct of the defendant. In this case Claude may be held reliable for the injury caused to the baby as he had a duty arising from public duty to care for the welfare of him. Claude will therefore be held for his omission. In R vs. Dytham it was held that failure to act in a public duty can make a person be held criminally liable. Claude had a duty to catch Amelias child duty and ensure that he was safe. In this case there was an omission on the part of Claude although there was no duty to act. Thus Claude may be held liable for his failure to act regardless of the fact that there was no duty to act.

Dr Darren will also be held liable for the death of Amelias baby. This is because he acted negligently by failing to detect the injuries that the baby had sustained on the skull. In addition, the doctor failed to give the baby vital life support treatment soon enough and as a result the baby died. In every profession, there is a code of ethics that guide people on how to go about their work. One common provision of code of ethics and especially for medical practitioners is to refrain from negligent and reckless acts. In this case Dr Darren acted in negligence as he was supposed to carry out various tests so as to detect the injuries sustained by the baby and give appropriate treatment. In addition the doctor terminated the treatment he was giving the treatment prematurely. This means that the child would not have dies if proper medical care was administered. Dr Darren is therefore liable for gross negligence.

While in civil cases the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities in criminal cases it is slightly different. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution who are supposed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In any criminal case it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty. The prosecution does this by showing to the court beyond any doubt that that the two elements of crime (Actus Reus and Mens Rea) existed. Failure by the prosecution to convince the court of the existence of these two key elements leave the court with no other option but to acquit the accused person with damages.