Scribd
Upload
36 views

1 Internal Assignment On "R vs. Prince": Subject Name-History and Principles of Criminal Law

Uploaded by

shruti sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
36 views

1 Internal Assignment On "R vs. Prince": Subject Name-History and Principles of Criminal Law

Uploaded by

shruti sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

1st Internal Assignment on “R Vs.

Prince”

Subject Name- History and Principles of Criminal Law

Subject Code- BLCS901

Name- Shruti Sharma

Reg No. – 46116210006

Semester/Year- 9th sem/ 5th year


R Vs. PRINCE

Equivalent Citation – L.R. 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 154(1875)

Petitioner – Regina

Defendant – Prince
For studying this case, we have to know about : What is Crime? What are elements of Crime?

What is Crime?

As per section 40 of IPC any act or omission made punishable by IPC is an offence. Similarly
Sec 2n of CrPC says that any act or omission made punishable by the IPC or any other law for
the time being enforced is an offence.

Many jurists have defined crime in their own ways some of which are as under:

Blackstone defined crime as an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either
forbidding or commanding it. (crime is a public wrong)

Stephen observed a crime is an act not only punishable by law but is also revolting to the moral
sentiments of the society. (crime is a moral wrong)

Kenny says that crime is a punishable at and is no way remissible by any private person and is
remissible by the sovereign (state) if remissible at all.

What are elements of crime?

There are basically four elements of a crime.

1. Human being
2. Mens Rea
3. Actus Rea
4. Injury caused
R vs. Prince case is related to 2nd element i.e., Mens rea or guilty intention.

Mens Rea or Guilty intention

The second element is derived from the famous maxim Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit
Rhea which means that, the guilty intention and guilty act together constitute a crime. It comes
from the maxim that no person can be punished in a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can
be showed that he had a guilty mid. There can be no more crime of any nature without mens rea
or an evil mind.

The maxim has been borrowed from moral theology by Lord Edward Coke and applied to
common law crimes and since the it has been uniformly applied in common law crimes.

Application of the doctrine of mens rea in England: Application of this doctrine in statutory
offence in England remained uncertain till 1946.

About Case: R vs. Prince

Facts:

The defendant was convicted of taking an unmarried girl under 16 years (and the girl was of 14
years) of age out of the possession and against the will of her father. Under Section 55 of the
offences against the person act, 1961, it was an offence. In this case the girl herself told Prince
that she was 18 years of age and she also physically appeared to be of 18 years of age.

Issue:

Is the court required to read a mens rea requirement into a statute that is silent with regard to the
mental state required to make the act a crime? Whether a mistake of fact can be considered as a
valid defence if the accused has committed an unlawful act knowingly?
Judgement:

The jury also found upon evidence that the girl went with the Prince willingly and Prince
bonafidely believed that she was of 18 years of age and such a belief was reasonable. It was
argued on behalf of Prince that common law doctrine of mens rea should also be applied under
sec 55 and he should not be convicted because he had no intention to commit the offence.

Only J. Brett accepted this argument and held that Prince was not guilty as he had no intention
to commit the offence.

Blackburn J made a distinction between offences which are mahim in se (both legal as well as
moral wrongs) and offences which are mahim prohibitum (only legal wrongs) and he said that
for offences which are ‘mahim in se’ mens rea would be presumed and need not be specially
proved by the prosecution and since prince has committed an immortal act in taking away a
unmarried girl, his mens rea under section 55 would be presumed and he was guilty.

But all other judges like Denman, J& Bramwell.J expressed the view that since the legislature
have punished this act irrespective of mens rea according to the language of section, the accused
was guilty and the doctrine of mens rea shall not be applied in this case.

Decision / Analysis

The court found that the statute does not specifically state that mens rea (“guilty mind”) is
required; the defendant is guilty because he knew his act was wrong.

Conviction affirmed. Mistake of fact does not stand as a defense to a crime where the statute
making the act a crime contains no requirements of knowledge of that fact to begin with.

In this case the forbidden act is wrong in itself and the legislature has enacted that if anyone does
this act, he does so as his own risk.

This case has been criticized by many authors including Russel as unsatisfactory and in conflict
with established principles of criminal law.

You might also like