SEMINAR 1 – ANALYSING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE Mens rea – the mental element of the offence; what does this mean? Mens rea can be divided up into two elements: (1) intention; and (2) recklessness. Actus reus – can consist of: (1) an act (2) committed in a certain specified circumstances and (3) leading to the prohibited consequence. Mens rea should exist in relation to each of these separate elements. Assault and Battery Battery is the application of unlawful touching or force
Premium Criminal law Crime Actus reus
Mens Rea and delegated legislation Alexandra StoicaMens rea: the guilty mind of the defendant The difference between s18 and s20 of the Offences against the person act 1861 is the mens rea required. Mens rea must be distinguished from motive. Motive can be relevant in some crimes. Intention: can be direct or indirect (oblique) Direct intention- this occurs where the consequence is the defendant’s aim or purpose. An example is Mohan 1976. The defendants deliberately attacked the victim. The resulting
Premium Statutory law Parliament Westminster system
robbery. Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 provides that (copy statue?) Robbery is theft with an aggravating factor‚ and from the case Forrester‚ Forrester [1992] Crim LR 793 (CA) ‚ to prove robbery‚ all elements of the offence theft must be proven. There are in total five elements that constitute theft. The first three elements is the Actus Reus while the rest are Men Rea. The first stage we look at is the appropriation‚ which is from section 3 of the Theft Act 1968. Appropriation is defined as
Premium Criminal law Crime Theft
Mens rea Subjectivity is the recklessness and intention : the mental state of d Objectivity negligence compared to a reasonable mans actions * The mr for murder is did d have malic aforethought : did d have the intention to kill or cause GBH * Recklessness is subjective concept with an exception of criminal damage which is objective now but wasn’t before due to HOL decision in r v g because it included an objective standard of fault * motive and intention is different : Moloney
Premium Criminal law Crime
Mens rea is a Latin term meaning "guilty mind". It refers to the criminal intent that is necessary as an element to be proven in a crime. Many civil law claims also include some level of mens rea as a required element. The four levels of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code are: 1. Purposely - Express purpose to commit a specific crime against a particular person 2. Knowingly - Knowledge that one’s actions would certainly result in a crime against someone‚ but did not specifically intend
Premium Criminal law Actus reus Crime
There are as many views on the mens rea of murder as there are cases. The last 40 years has witnessed a said inability of the courts to sort it out coherently and precisely. Mens Rea‚ or “guilty mind‚” marks a central distinguishing feature of criminal law. An injury caused without mens rea might be grounds for civil liability but typically not for criminal. Criminal liability requires not only causing a prohibited harm or evil -- the “actus reus” of an offense -- but also a particular state of
Free Criminal law
MENS REA Mens Rea is described as "A guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent; Guilty knowledge and willfulness". [2] In criminal law it is the basic principle that a crime consists of a mental element and a physical element. A person’s awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal is the mental element‚ and actus reus’ (the act itself) is the physical element. The concept of Mens Rea started its development in the 1600s in England when judges started to say that
Premium Criminal law Crime Mens rea
Mens Rea Cheat Sheet: 1) Direct Intent: purpose to cause it = purpose type intent or direct intent. 2) Oblique Intent: constructed when D does not intend result but foresees its occurrence as a certainty. Smith (1990) example: Plane Insurance bombing. 3) Itzhak Kugler (2004): states where there is only a 50% chance of explosion this should be conditional oblique intent and be a form of recklessness rather than intent. 4) MD (2004): states OI was created to help prosecution fill
Premium Criminal law Mind Uncertainty
Compare and contrast intention and recklessness as fault terms governing criminal liability To be guilty of a crime‚ it is usually expected that the defendant has the necessary mens rea or guilty mind‚ (subject to cases of strict liability.). The level of mens rea required varies for different crimes‚ to find the mens rea one must look at the specific definition of a crime. For the purpose of this essay I will first look at Intention and Recklessness and then compare the two as fault terms governing
Premium Criminal law
Theft - The Theft offence is defined under S1 of the ‘Theft act 1968’. Where it provides that if ‘A person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another‚ with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it‚’ will be guilty of the offence. For this charge to be upheld‚ both the actus Reus and the mens rea have to be established. Actus Reus - Beginning with the physical element of the crime‚ the actus Reus it is made up of 3 elements – ‘appropriates‚ property‚ belonging to another
Premium Theft Criminal law Crime