As to the knowledge where actus reus and mens rea play an important role in proving the elements of crimes, another type of offences come to the picture where one of the important elements of an offence is not necessarily exists and does not have to be proven. This is known as the strict liability offences. According to the Oxford Dictionary, strict liability can be defined as a liability which does not depending on the intention to cause harm. This can be known as there is no blameworthy or guilty of mind of the offenders on the action he committed. Jade Pickett in his article sum up the definition of strict liability where a man can still be charged under strict liability offences even though he did not realised of what he had done or he …show more content…
Promotion of high standard of care is known as the maximum attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would exercise. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then his acts fail to meet the duty of care which all people supposedly have toward others. Smith and Pearson, in their article agreed that existence of strict liability does induce and encourage some sectors to provide and aim higher care and standard before their performance. For example, it is believed when an organisation decided to make deals with their customers or people around them, they are of duty to provide their best services and facilities as well as to maximally protect the peoples’ welfare while dealing with their own particular …show more content…
Although it may be said that this point is more or less similar as to promotion of high standard of care, this particular point will discuss more on the expect of consequences to the public within the terms of safety and health. Both points can be said to be interrelated as when there exists the high standard of care, the safety and health of the public could be ensure. This point is closely related to the name of ‘social concern’, ‘public safety’ and to encourage ‘greater awareness to prevent commission of prohibited act’. This means that strict liability is very useful to the public as a whole, for the protection to the wider public and social utility. The creation of strict liability also will promote the purpose of the statute by encouraging potential offenders to take extra precautions against committing the prohibited act so that there is assurance of safety to the innocent
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
“One of those obligations is that it must exercise a proper degree of care for its patients, and, to the extent that it fails in that care, it should be liable in damages as any other commercial firm would be
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”.
Mens Rea – there is a guilty mind i.e. there must be reasonable knowledge or suspicion of the guilty act.
Actus reus refers to a criminal act that occurs or happens as a result of voluntary bodily movement (Dressler, 2015). In other words, it is a physical activity that harms an individual, or damage properties. Every physical activity such as murder to the destruction of public properties qualifies to be an actus reus. It consists of all the elements of a crime other than the state of mind of the offender. Apparently, it may consist of conduct, the state of affairs, result, or an omission.
This assignment will evaluate murder, Homicide and will focus specifically on gross negligence manslaughter and diminished responsibility. It will explain the key rules and cases that are relevant to this aspect of criminal law. It will explain some of the rules using relevant statutes and/or case law and will show how the courts apply the rules of an area of criminal law in order to find a defendant guilty of an offence. This will be followed by an analysis of a relevant case and the law and statutes that are applicable. This leads the assignment towards a description of defences a defendant could use when accused of a gross negligence manslaughter. The final part of the assignment will be orientated towards changes made in the law over
However, the second premise focuses on aspects of the problem of strict criminal liability and the degree of the punishment that is executed by a legal act of an official. Feinberg’s view of strict liability in terms of criminal offenses in which there is no fault such as hefty fines (or civil penalties) for not obeying traffic laws is that the legal system should hold the same strict liability for imprisonment as well (Feinberg 417). As for the degree of punishment he argues that hard treatment and symbolic condemnation are truly necessary to complete a sufficient definition of
Actus Reas is the Latin term for “guilty act”. The actus reas of a common assault is committed when one person causes another to apprehend or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury.
Strict liability arises in the animal context when the animal at issue is either a wild animal or a domestic animal with a known vicious propensity. This principle is the origin of the well-known “one bite” rule for dogs. Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. Under a rule of strict liability, proof of causation is a necessary condition for liability. The early common law distinguished between wild and domesticated animals for purposes of imposing liability on their owners. Owners of fierce or wild animals were absolutely liable for harm caused to others. However, owners of domesticated animals, such as dogs, were liable only if they had scienter; that is, the owners were liable only if they knew of the animal’s dangerous or mischievous propensities. Tort law has traditionally sought to balance the “usefulness” of an animal with the risk it represents to the public. Common law torts is a legal structure that seek to allocate risk among the members of society; the more valuable a particular activity to society, the more willing is the society, through its legal rules, to shift risk of the activity to others.
Criminalisation of a certain conduct is a declaration by the society that it is a public wrong that should not be done which is is enforced by sanctions in order to supply a pragmatic reason for not doing it, and to censure those who nevertheless do it. Criminalisation of conduct inevitably involves an invasion or limitation of a person’s individual autonomy and is an intrusion, which must be adequately justified and controlled to ensure the protection of the individual’s fundamental right to freedom. Therefore, when policy and lawmakers make a decision to criminalise an act, it is a declaration that the particular act is a “public wrong” that must be prohibited by the imposition of criminal penalties. The question is how far the law should go in criminalising certain acts without trampling on the fundamental human rights of the actors. Ideally, objective criteria should be used by the state, in striking the appropriate balance.
Mens rea refers to the mental element involved in committing a crime and is concerned with the guilty mind of the defendant. Both intent and recklessness are categories of mens rea that are different and have different levels of culpability.
Doctors are not god, they are humans and humans can make mistakes. However, it is the responsibility of the doctor to inform the patient about the mistakes. In this episode of Grey’s Anatomy, Dr. Derek had performed two surgeries on his patient Jen, who had seizures. During the first surgery he makes a mistake because of which the patient has to undergo second surgery. The patient’s pregnancy makes the case complicated. The second surgery is successful, but later on Dr. Addison tells the patient that she was preeclamptic. The patient and her husband being unaware what preeclampsia was, ask if they need to be worried? Dr. Derek does not allow Dr. Addison to disclose the seriousness of the matter because he wanted to enjoy the success of the
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
Mens rea known as the “mental element” of an offence has long been regarded as a crucial factor in criminal law, aiming to ensure that only those who are blameworthy are punished for crimes thus inputting the role of fairness into the criminal law system. H.L.A Hart agreed with this fairness rationale arguing that it would be wrong to convict and punish anyone who had not been given ‘a fair opportunity’ to exercise the capacity for ‘doing what the law requires and abstaining from what it forbids.’ “The general rule is that no crime can be committed unless there is mens rea.” But this is departed from when creating strict liability offences.
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability from a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of said defences. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application.