Criminal law- Actus Rea and Mens Rea Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Criminal law- Actus Rea and Mens Rea - Essay Example 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 Reas' is the physical element and 'Actus Reas' (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 an act alone could not create criminality unless it was adjunct with a guilty state of mind. The degree for a particular common law crime varied for Mens Rea. Murder required a malicious state of mind, whereas larceny required a felonious state of mind.Mens Rea is generally used along with the words general intent, however this creates confusion since general intent is used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. On the other hand specific intent describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required. (An swers, 2008)To secure a conviction, the prosecution side must prove that the defendant committed the crime while in a certain state of mind. The definition is specified of every crime before a person can be convicted as a prerequisite for Mens Rea. There are three states of mind which constitute the necessary Mens Rea for a criminal offence. These are intention, recklessness and negligence and are described below. (Law Teacher, 2006)Direct intent is the normal situation where the consequences of a person's actions are desired. Oblique intent comes in the situation where the consequence is known by the defendant as virtually certain, although it is not desired for its own sake, and the defendant goes ahead with his actions anyway. (Law Teacher, 2006) Intention Based On Foresight of Consequences For a person to get acquitted for some charges, then that person should have the full knowledge that his/her actions would definitely result in a specific consequence. A probability that something can occur or might occur is not enough to subject a person on criminality. The Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 explains how intention or foresight must be proved by the following paragraph: "A court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances." (Law Teacher, 2006) The cases where they were applied are listed below. The relationship between foresight and intention was considered by the House of Lords in: Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025 It is important to note that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention but only evidence of intention: R v Scalley [1995] Crim LR 504. The most recent case in this area is the decision of the House of Lords in: R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103. The law says - For the prosecutors to come up with evidence that the defendant had directly intended to perform a certain action to get a specific result would be extremely difficult (R v Moloney, 1985). This is because one cannot know what is or what was inside the defendant's mind when the action was taken. Therefore in criminal law, the proof of only the foresight intent is required as opposed to direct intent. (Law Teacher, 2006) Recklessness Recklessness is taking an unjustified risk. In most cases, there is clear subjective evidence that the accused predicted but did not desire the particular outcome. When the accused committed the act, the risk of causing the given loss or damage was taken. There is always some