Scribd
Upload
136 views3 pages

Criminal Law Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

The document discusses the legal principle of coincidence of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law. It explains that both the guilty act and guilty mind must coincide for criminal liability. The courts have developed two ways to find coincidence when acts occur over time: 1) Continuing acts - An ongoing actus reus can coincide with a later mens rea. 2) One transaction - A series of acts can be considered one transaction, so if actus reus and mens rea are present at any time during the transaction, there is liability. Several cases are cited that apply these concepts to find defendants guilty of crimes even when the act and intent were not literally simultaneous.

Uploaded by

ماتو اریکا
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
136 views3 pages

Criminal Law Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

The document discusses the legal principle of coincidence of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law. It explains that both the guilty act and guilty mind must coincide for criminal liability. The courts have developed two ways to find coincidence when acts occur over time: 1) Continuing acts - An ongoing actus reus can coincide with a later mens rea. 2) One transaction - A series of acts can be considered one transaction, so if actus reus and mens rea are present at any time during the transaction, there is liability. Several cases are cited that apply these concepts to find defendants guilty of crimes even when the act and intent were not literally simultaneous.

Uploaded by

ماتو اریکا
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

lOMoARcPSD|1317039

Criminal LAW - Coincidence OF Actus REUS AND MENS


REA
Criminal law (University of London)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university


Downloaded by Sanaya Khan ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|1317039

CRIMINAL LAW

COINCIDENCE OF ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

Both actus reus and the mens rea must coincide for there to be criminal liability.

In some cases a literal interpretation of this rule would manifestly lead to injustice, and the courts
have developed ways of finding a coincidence of actus reus and mens rea when the events take
place over a period of time and constitute a course of events.

Continuing Acts
One way is to say that an actus reus is some circumstance involving a continuing act and a later
mens rea can therefore coincide.
Authority: Fagan vs. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969). D accidentally drove
his car on a policeman’s foot (no mens rea at that time) and when he realised, he refused to
remove it immediately. The court held that the actus reus of the assault was a continuing act in
progress all the time the car was on the policeman’s foot, so the subsequent mens rea could
coincide with the actus reus at a later stage.
Authority: Kaitamaki (1984). D was charged with rape. His defence was that when he
penetrated the woman he thought she was consenting. When he realised that she objected he did
not withdraw. The Privy Council held that the actus reus of rape was a continuing act, and when
he realised that she did not consent (and he therefore formed necessary mens rea) the actus reus
was still in progress and there could therefore be coincidence.

One Transaction
The second way the courts have dealt with the problem is to consider a continuing series of acts
to be “one transaction” for the purposes of the criminal law. If actus reus and mens rea are both
present at some time during this transaction, then there is liability.
Authority: Thabo Meli vs. R. (1954). D’s had attempted to kill their victim by beating
him over the head. They threw the body over a cliff. He died from the fall and exposure, and not
from the beating. The Privy Council held that this was all one series of acts following through a
pre-conceived plan of action and therefore could not be seen as separate acts at all. Actus reus
and the mens rea were present during the transaction and therefore D’s were guilty of murder.
Authority: Church (1996). The same reasoning was applied here even where there was
no pre-conceived plan and D, having killed (or so he thought) unexpectedly, disposed of the
“body” in a panic and thereby caused death.
Authority: Le Brun (1991). D committed an initial assault and then unintentionally
killed what he believed to be a corpse in trying to cover up his crime. The Court of Appeal
confined and applied the reasoning in Church.

Downloaded by Sanaya Khan ([email protected])


lOMoARcPSD|1317039

This kind of reasoning should be recognized for what it is: a way to avoid a logical but unjust
result.

Downloaded by Sanaya Khan ([email protected])

You might also like