Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Actus reus introduction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Actus reus introduction
It is clear from the facts it is a case of non-fatal offences against the person. They include assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm which is sometimes abbreviated as ABH, maliciously wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm and the last one wounding or causing grievous bodily harm. We will start examining the most serious offences which are committed by Cyril then moving to the least serious offences which are committed by Moby. It is noted that for there to have liability both the elements of actus Reus and mens rea should be present while committing the offences. From the facts of the case, we noted that Cyril threatened to hit Moby and even waved his fist in the air at him. From this point of view Cyril can be liable for assault. Assault is defined as a situation where one person creates fear of harm to another person . For assault to take place there is no need to apply force or make any physical contact with the person. The actus Reus here for assault is that there must be an act and that particular act caused the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force applying the principle set in the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) . Words spoken are sufficient to be qualified as an assault. This principle is set out in the case of R v Ireland; Burstow . In our case the spoken words of Cyril and the act of raising his fit in the direction of Moby have undoubtedly created fear. It must be noted that it is sufficient that Moby thought that the physical violence was immediate, here applying the case of Smith v Chief Superintendent of Working Police Station . As mentioned above both the elements actus reus and mens rea should be present for an offence, we now come the mens... ... middle of paper ... .... Another offence under which Moby might be convicted is s47 for he stuck Cyril on head causing him to pass out for a few minutes. Applying the case of T v DPP a momentary loss of consciousness is sufficient for s47. This is defined as occasioning actual bodily harm also referred as ABH. There are three elements for actus reus. There must be as assault or battery. We have already established that Moby might be convicted for battery. Another element is occasioning. Under this element we have to prove that the battery caused the actual bodily harm. Establishing the but-for test , Cyril would not have lost his spectacles and blow out if Moby did not stick him. The bruises caused by the yin can be charged under s47 . The mens rea required here is that of battery . As we have already establish the mens rea it is most probably that Moby might be convicted under s47
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
On June 7th 2008, Sarah May Ward was arrested for the murder of Eli Westlake after she ran him over in a motor vehicle in St. Leonards. Prior to the incident the offender had been driving the wrong way down Christine Lane which was a one way street. Whilst this was occurring she was intoxicated, under the influence of marijuana, valium, and ecstasy and was unlicensed to drive. The victim and his brother who were also intoxicated, where walking down the lane and where nearly hit by the offender. This prompted the victim to throw cheese balls at the car and make a few sarcastic remarks regarding her driving ability. After a brief confrontation between the two parties the victim and his brother turned away and proceeded to walk down Lithgow Street. The offender followed the victim into the street and drove into him while he was crossing a driveway.
The suspect used an unknown hand to hit the victim in the nose, which caused injury in violation of PC 243(a)-Battery.
In the present case there are two possible prosecutions to discuss. Jerome may be guilty of ‘controlling or coercive behaviour’ under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. While Talia may be guilty of assault under section 20 or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861.
Actus Reus is the Latin for ‘guilty act’. Firstly, the Actus Reus of Murder depends on conduct, consequence and causation. Generally, conduct is a physical act done by the defendant, and in this case the offence is also capable of commission by omission . In Miller the defendant was guilty for not informing the authorities. In Stone and Dobinson , the defendants were charged for breach of duty to act. Subsequently from Maisie’s stabbing, Jane died 15 minutes later due to the loss of blood and therefore the crime was a result one and there has been a “guilty act”.
This is a completely separate and alternative aspect of mens rea, and it is assumed that the accused does not have an intention to kill. There is a clear difference between the mens rea of ‘recklessness’ for crimes other than murder, and ‘wicked recklessness’ for murder. This was determined in Cawthorne v HMA when the accused fired a high-velocity rifle through a wooden door into a room where four people were situated in an attempt to escape from him. He made no attempt to stop any danger from happening but fired five shots at a height where it may have been foreseeable that he could cause serious harm or injury. On the assumption that this intent was only to frighten these people and not to kill them, the appeal court still determined that the accused had shown the wicked recklessness necessary for murder. In this case it was held that the mens rea of murder, or attempted murder, could be proved by such recklessness that to show that the accused was regardless of the consequences of his actions, that he was completely indifferent to whether anyone died as a result of his actions. Cawthorne is now a clear precedent both that the mens rea of criminal attempt Is exactly the same as that for the completed crime and that wicked recklessness is a separate form of the mens rea of murder. Wicked recklessness is described by Gordon as recklessness which is “so gross that it indicates a state of mind of a deliberate
The investigator first needs to first understand the “Model Penal Code Standard” that “actus reas is required to exist in unison with criminal intent” and mens rea is to have a knowledge or thoughts to intentionally, deliberately, and purposefully act to convey or cause injury
Actus Reus of Murder When a man of sound memory over the age of discretion unlawfully kills
Were actus reus and mens reus present at the time this crime was committed? Explain.
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". The mens rea of common assault is when the individual has already thought or planned out the action and proceeds with the plan.
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
The mens rea of assault by penetration is the intention two commit an act of penetration where the defendants does not have the reasonable belief of the consent of the victim.
Attempted murder, involved the voluntary act of Jack pointing a gun and firing it (act) at Bert that resulted in (causation) death of Pratt (social harm), which proves the elements of actus reus. ...
Working through The Full Code Test within, The Code for Crown Prosecutors enables the conclusion to be reached as to whether Harry should be charged in accordance with s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm ('ABH'). For conviction, prosecutors would demonstrate the actus reus and mens rea of ABH, in this case that Harry assaulted and caused the actual bodily harm to Rob and reckless or intended the assault.