1.6 Criminal Law Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea Lecture 6 PDF

Preview

Summary

Criminal Law Lecture Notes ...

Description

Criminal Law: Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens rea

1.

Criminal liability usually requires the prosecution to establish: a) b) c)

A did something which the law prohibits Was at fault in doing something which the law prohibits A definitional and temporal match between what A did and what he intended/foresaw etc.

Definitional coincidence: ─

The fault element for crime X cannot convict A for crime Y.

Pembliton [1874]: ─ The defendant threw a stone at the victim; it missed the victim but when on to break the window. He was charged with malicious damage what’s now known as criminal damage. Held: The judge concluded that he was guilty of criminal damage, as he done something wrong and the result of him doing wrong lead to the window breaking on first instance he was convicted. Later his appeal the court for crown cases reserved quashed his conviction. The argued that he had the mens rea of assault intending to cause GBH BUT his actus Reus was criminal damage. The prosecution could only prove actus Reus of assault without any mens rea. ─

Note you can’t add on element of one crime to another criminal act. They should have argued that his action was recklessness that he had the intention [mens rea] for criminal damage which includes recklessness.

Exception: Unless 1.

A also has the fault element for crime X

2.

A’s fault element is sufficient also for crime Y. Vickers (1957):

─

Example, someone could be charged with manslaughter if he has the intention for arson. Same with murder that someone could be charged with murder if he intended to cause GBH but the person died. Sufficient to associate less crime with higher crimes if they are connected like the examples above.

3.

Where the doctrine of transferred malice applies.

0R

It applies when a commits the crime charged but the subject matter of the crime was other than A intended or foresaw. Gore [1611]: ─ The defendant was the wife of someone who wanted to kill her husband. What she did was to go to a local pharmacist usually called apothecaries. She bought a medicine as her husband was complaining, but she added some poison [rat] to it and was instructed to give to her husband two spoons full twice a week. Husband was getting more ill and he went to the apothecary to question the potion maker. The apothecarist said that there is nothing wrong with my potion so he downed the whole bottle and later died. Held: The Mr gore was charged with murder of the apothecary, she argued that she didn’t intended to kill the apothecary thus having no mens rea or mental element. This argument was refused and rejected. [Actus Reus and men rea did not coincide].The principle that the court gave in coming to this conclusion was transferred malice, as if you have the men’s rea of one crime and commit the actus Reus of another similar crime of the same type [i.e. murder]. Then applying this transferable malice rule then the mens rea of that similar crime would be transferred for it to coincide with the actus Reus of that crime. [Men’s rea for murder of her husband and the actus Reus of killing the apothecary would coincide to make her liable for murder].

1|Page

Saunders and Archer [1575]: ─ The husband getting his own back wanted to kill his wife. He wanted to use the snow white example. He got an apple and poisoned it and presented it to his wife, she then decided that the apple should be given to her young daughter, and she ate the apple and died. Held: He was charged with murder, and his argument was that he did not intend to kill his daughter thus not having the mental element. This makes no difference as the principle of transferred malice meant that the men’s rea of a similar crime was transferred to coincide with the actus reus of murdering his daughter even tho he did not intended it. Latimer [1886]: ─ The defendant got into a fight at the bar, in which he removed his belt intending to harm the individual that he was in a brawl with but whilst swinging the belt back he assaulted the person behind him causing GBH. Held: He was charged with assault and causing GBH as his men’s rea for assaulting the person in front was transferred to coincide with the actus Reus of the crime in question. ─

Note: Courts could have used another way: They could have used the alternative mens rea for assault causing GBH which is recklessness. But in Exam start with recklessness than use Transfer malice doctrine.

Temporal Coincidence At the very moment A performs the conduct element of crime X he must have the mens rea for crime X Ahmad [1986]: ─ D removed windows for good reason; they were rotten. 3 months later he did not reinstalled them. Tenant requested them to be reinstalled which were not accepted. Winter was setting in and the house was getting colder and colder. Eventually the tenant called the police and said that my landlord is harassing me. Under the protection of the harassment act my landlord has done acts with the intention of removing me from the flat. This argument was rejected as the landlord action were separated from his intention, his acts came first then his intention was to remove the tenant. ─

Doing acts with the intention of causing the tenant to give up the occupation of premises. Failed. Although he had the intension to give up the premises, he did the acts first, then formed intention later. The two didn’t meet. The courts held that This was an offense that couldn’t be committed by omission because the offence was to ‘doing acts’ with the intention of causing a tenant to leave occupation of his house.

R. v. Vinall and another [2011] EWCA Crim 6252 Exception to the temporal coincidence: 1.

If act and mind do not coincide in time this is not always fatal.

R v Miller [1983]: ─ To overcome this need for temporal coincidence one can say that the act was not accompanied by mens rea but the later omission was. This was the conclusion of the court on this case. Charged with criminal damage. Coincidence irrelevant. When the fault emerged, his omission constituted actus Reus. 2.

The continuing act doctrine

Fagan v MPC [1969]: ─ Mr Fagan argument was that he had done the act of driving over the police man foot , but whilst doing this act he had no mens rea [mental element] as I didn’t know the police officer was so close and this was completely accidental. When I realised that the police officer was under my cars wheel, i did no further acts. As an assault causing actual bodily harm is a crime that required proof with an act with mens rea. The prosecution can prove actus Reus in the first stage but no mens rea and in the second stage they can prove mens rea but no conduct element. Thus actus Reus and mens rea don’t coincide.

2|Page

─

Simply by saying that an act of an assault last as long as the force is being applied to the victim, They called this a continuing act that did not end when the engine was turned off rather it was continuing until the assault stopped. D “did the act but did not know of police man presence and when I realised his presence, I did not further acts”. The act of assault lasts as long as force is being applied to the police officer, it was a continuing act.

Another exception: The Supposed Corpse cases. Preconceived plan: Thabo and Meli [1954]: ─ Two defend decided to kill a third party, they made a plan, and that plan was that they would invite the third party to a specific location on top of a cliff. They would beat him and throw him of the Clift and make it look like it was an accident. The individual who was thrown off the cliff died but this was seen by someone. They were charged with murder. When we threw him of the cliff prior to that he was dead, we thought he had died as then threw him off the cliff. The medical evidence showed that the fall from the cliff killed him rather than the initial attempt. The defendants argument was that when committing the act of attempted murder it was not accompanied by actus reus as the individual did not die and when they threw him of the cliff the act which lead to his death they did not have mens rea. Privy Council: Rejected [sir lanka] ─

"It appears to their Lordships impossible to divide up what was really one transaction in this way. There is no doubt that the accused set out to do all these acts in order to achieve their plan and as parts of their plan: and it is much too refined a ground (Allow the intricacies, they are murderers so we treat them as such) of judgement to say that, because they were under a misapprehension at one stage and thought that their guilty purpose had been achieved before in fact it was achieved, therefore they are to escape the penalties of the law." Lord Reid

No preconceived plan Church [1966]: ─ The defendant was with a prostitute and he was unable to rise to the occasion [i.e. get an erection]. She abused him and he lost his temper by punching her, she felt unconscious. He tried looking for a pulse then he presumed her to be dead and threw her in the river which was the actual cause of her death. The post-Morton identified that the cause of death was that she drowned to death rather than the initial punch. No preconceived plan.

The court of appeal held that the defendant was guilty of homicide: ─

Homicide is the appropriate verdict if ‘the appellant’s behaviour (could be regarded) from the moment he first struck her to the moment when he threw her into the river as throughout a series of acts which culminated in her death, and that, if that was how they regarded the accused’s behaviour, it mattered not whether he believed her to be alive or dead when he threw her in the river." (Church)--- lord justice Edmund Davis Chain of causation started with a punch and ended with her death. The punch was accompanied with mens rea it ended with her death thus he caused her death unless new act intervenes which did not take place

LeBrun [1992]: ─ The defendant and his female partner had a fight in the street; he went on to punch her and was worried that people were watching and so he dragged her into the house. She then banged her while going into the house which resulted to her death. His argument was that he was not liable for manslaughter as his punch was not the Cause of her death thus when he dragged her it was not accompanied by mens rea. The court of appeal stated that ─

“Where the unlawful application of force and the eventual act causing death are parts of the same sequence of events, the same transaction, the fact that there is an appreciable interval of time between the two does not serve to exonerate the defendant. That is certainly so where the appellant’s subsequent actions which caused death, after the initial unlawful blow, are designed to conceal his commission of the original unlawful assault…. The problem is one of causation. The original unlawful blow to the chin was a ‘causa sine qua non’ of the later actus Reus. It was the opening event in a series which was to culminate in death: the first link in the chain of

3|Page

causation, to use another metaphor. It cannot be said that the actions of the appellant in dragging the victim away with the intention of evading liability broke the chain which linked the initial blow with the death. In short, in circumstances such as the present, which is the only concern of this court, the act which causes death, and the necessary mental state to constitute manslaughter, need not coincide in point of time” (Le Brun 1992) In summary ─

'If a killing by the first act would have been murder/manslaughter, a later destruction of the supposed corpse should also be murder/manslaughter.' Williams

4|Page...