Actus Reus - state of affairs PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Actus Reus - state of affairs PDF

Description

‘State of Affairs’ as an actus reus A crime may be defined as to have no ‘act’ in general terms, no need for any ‘willed muscular movement’ – called ‘status’ or ‘situation’ offences. E.g. s 4(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 – any person who, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs, commits an offence. Here, it is not ‘taking charge’ or ‘becoming unfit’ which is the offence, but simply being unfit and being in charge, the actus reus is committed. E.g. s 25 of the Theft Act 1968 – a person commits an offence if, when not at his abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of, in connection with, burglary. Having the article with him is committing the offence. These offences treated with caution – usually associated with tyrannical regimes in which offences of ‘status’ are enacted, e.g. being a member of a particular political organisation, or being of a particular race of religion, since these offences may contravene the ECHR. Larsonneur and Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent provide examples of modern-day offences of this type which seem peculiarly offensive, since in both of these cases the ‘state of affairs’ was procured by the police. These offences strangely require an act on behalf of the finder but no act or mens rea on the part of D. There should be proof that either D caused the state of affairs, or failed to terminate it, or act in order to do so when it was within his control and possible to do so. Pitchford J: ‘Parliament embraces the power to create ‘state of affairs’ offences in which no causative link between the prohibited state of affairs and the defendant need to be established … the issue is … whether Parliament intended to create one.’ – Parliamentary sovereignty means that it can create situational offences of absolute liability. Physical impossibility to comply with the law should be a defence, or at least where it arose not due to D’s own fault. The Privy Council held that the offence of ‘remaining’ in Singapore, having been prohibited from entering that country, cannot be committed by one who is ignorant of the prohibition e.g. held in custody. At common law ‘being in possession’ was an insufficient act to cause the actus reus of a crime, but there are not many cases where, by statute, this suffices. E.g. possession of drugs, explosive substances firearms etc. Merely knowingly (in criminal law knowledge is usually required, unlike civil) keeping goods in his house is the actus reus....