Law (9084) | Elements of a crime

AS Level Criminal Law (9084): Elements of a Crime (Topic 2.1)

Hello future lawyers! Welcome to the fundamental building block of Criminal Law. Before someone can be found guilty of a crime, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that two essential ingredients were present at the same time. This chapter is your foundation for understanding liability – get this right, and the rest of Criminal Law becomes much clearer!

The Two Essential Ingredients of a Crime

In English Law, a person generally cannot be convicted of a crime unless two core elements exist simultaneously. Think of it like baking a criminal cake – you need both the flour and the water!

• Ingredient 1: Actus Reus (The guilty act)
• Ingredient 2: Mens Rea (The guilty mind)

Mnemonic Aid: Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Remember the phrase: Acting Really Makes Regret.

If the prosecution cannot prove both the physical act (AR) and the necessary mental state (MR) occurred together (the principle of coincidence), the defendant usually cannot be found guilty.

---

Section 1: Actus Reus (The Guilty Act)

The Actus Reus is the physical component of the crime. It includes the conduct, and in crimes that require a specific outcome (known as 'result crimes', like murder), it also includes the required consequence and any surrounding circumstances.

Components of Actus Reus:

1. Conduct: The action or behaviour of the defendant (e.g., pulling the trigger).
2. Consequences (Result): If the crime requires a specific outcome (e.g., death in murder).
3. Circumstances: Facts surrounding the conduct (e.g., in theft, the circumstance is that the property must 'belong to another').

Did you know? The term 'Actus Reus' doesn't always mean a physical action; it can sometimes be a state of affairs or a failure to act (an omission).

1.1. Actus Reus by Omission (Failure to Act)

A fundamental rule in English Law is that you generally cannot be guilty of a crime simply for failing to act. If you see someone drowning, you are not legally obligated to save them (though morally, you should!).

However, there are important exceptions where the law imposes a duty to act. When such a duty exists, a failure to act (an omission) can constitute the Actus Reus of a crime.

When does a duty to act arise?

• Statutory Duty: A law requires you to act (e.g., failing to provide a breath sample when required by the police).
• Contractual Duty: Your job requires you to act (e.g., a security guard who fails to lock up the premises).
• Duty Arising from Relationship: Duties owed by parents to children, or sometimes spouses to each other.
• Duty Arising from Assumption of Care: If you voluntarily take on the care of another person (e.g., caring for a sick relative), you assume a duty to continue that care.
• Duty Arising from Creating a Dangerous Situation: If the defendant accidentally creates a danger, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate it.

1.2. Causation

Causation is only required for result crimes (like murder or grievous bodily harm). This means the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s act legally caused the prohibited consequence.

Establishing causation requires two steps:

Step 1: Factual Causation (The 'But-For' Test)

The court asks: "But for the defendant's act, would the result have occurred?"

• If the answer is 'No, the result would not have happened', then Factual Causation is established.

Example: A shoots B. If B would have died anyway from a pre-existing heart condition at that exact moment, then A is not the factual cause of B's death (though this is rare).

Step 2: Legal Causation (The 'Operating and Substantial' Test)

Factual causation isn't enough. The defendant’s act must be an operating and substantial cause of the result.

• Substantial: The act must have contributed significantly (more than minimal) to the result.
• Operating: The chain of causation must not have been broken by a Novus Actus Interveniens.

Novus Actus Interveniens (Intervening Act)

This is a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation, meaning the defendant is no longer held responsible for the final outcome. These can be acts of a third party, the victim, or a natural event.

Common Intervening Acts:

1. Medical Treatment: Generally, poor medical treatment will not break the chain unless the treatment is so independent and potent that it renders the defendant's actions insignificant (a very high threshold).
2. Acts of the Victim: The chain is usually only broken if the victim's reaction was entirely unforeseeable or unreasonable in the circumstances (e.g., running into a busy road to escape a minor threat).

The Thin Skull Rule (Take your victim as you find them)

If the victim has a pre-existing weakness (like a thin skull or a specific medical condition, or even strong religious beliefs that prevent treatment), and this weakness makes the injury worse, the defendant is still liable for the full extent of the harm. You cannot argue that the victim’s weakness broke the chain of causation.

---

Section 2: Mens Rea (The Guilty Mind)

The Mens Rea is the mental component of the crime. It describes the state of mind the defendant must have had when committing the Actus Reus. This is crucial because Criminal Law is generally based on the concept of fault – we only punish those who act with a blameworthy state of mind.

The two main forms of Mens Rea you need to know are Intention and Recklessness.

2.1. Intention

Intention is the highest level of Mens Rea. It means the defendant had a specific desire or aim to bring about the result.

a) Direct Intention

This is the simplest form. The defendant’s purpose or aim was to commit the Actus Reus.

Example: If A wants to kill B, and A shoots B with the specific aim of ending B’s life, A has direct intention for murder.

b) Indirect (or Oblique) Intention

Don't worry if this seems tricky at first – Oblique Intention is used in very specific situations where the defendant didn't primarily desire the consequence, but knew it was virtually certain to happen anyway.

A defendant has oblique intention if:

1. The prohibited result (e.g., death or serious injury) was a virtually certain consequence of their act; AND
2. The defendant foresaw that result as virtually certain.

The jury is allowed to find (or infer) intention if these two points are met. The key authority here involves the test set out in cases like Woollin.

Analogy: You want to win an airplane ticket (primary aim) but the ticket is held inside a safe on a plane you are hijacking. You intend to blow the plane doors off (the act). You know with virtual certainty that the pilot and crew will die (the oblique consequence). Even though killing the crew wasn't your primary aim, you have oblique intention because you knew their deaths were virtually certain to achieve your goal.

2.2. Recklessness

Recklessness applies when the defendant takes an unjustifiable risk, even if they didn't specifically intend the result.

In modern AS Law, we focus on Subjective Recklessness (established in Cunningham), meaning the focus is on what the defendant himself actually foresaw.

A defendant is reckless if they:

1. Foresee (realise or know) that there is a risk that their conduct will cause the prohibited result (e.g., damaging property or causing harm); AND
2. Nonetheless unreasonably take that risk.

Example: A lights a cigarette in a petrol station, even though A clearly sees the "No Smoking" signs and knows there is a risk of explosion. If an explosion occurs, A is reckless because he foresaw the risk and took it anyway.

---

Conclusion: Bringing AR and MR Together (Coincidence)

For liability to arise, the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea must coincide, meaning they must occur at the same time. This is known as the principle of coincidence or contemporaneity.

Sometimes, the courts use the concept of a "continuing act" or a "series of connected events" to satisfy this requirement, especially if the defendant had the guilty mind at some point during the continuous physical action.