Consider and explain the significance of motive and mens rea in the development of criminal liability in Scots law.
All crimes must have a behavioural element (the actus reus) and usually a mental element (the mens rea) for a person to be held criminally liable. It is widely accepted that the general rule is; the commission of an illicit act under criminal law (an actus reus) will not be satisfactory to prove any criminal liability unless an essential mental element is present. Each crime has its own mens rea requirement (with exceptions to offences of strict liability) and in order to fulfil that requirement the accused must indicate that particular mental state when committing the crime. However, the Crown need not prove motive as criminal law does not ask why the accused committed the crime, deeming motive less significant than mens rea in the development of criminal liability.
While motive may contribute to the prosecution when establishing its case, if the
…show more content…
In a hypothetical situation when person 1 commits a crime because person 2 has threatened to kill their family and is holding them at gun point, they would fail in pleading that they did not have the sufficient mens rea. Their defence would be based on an acknowledgement that the accused 's underlying motive for acting—protecting his family—provides him with an justifiable reason for what would otherwise be a crime. Additionally, it is problematic to say motive is irrelevant as motive is an essential ingredient in mens rea for some statutory sexual offences, where it must be shown that the accuse acted for the purpose of sexual gratification, or to humiliate, distress or alarm the complainer. It is also a great importance in relation to a number of statutory offences in which prejudicial motives (based on race, religion, disability or sexual orientation, for example) are specified as a form of aggravation, meriting a more sever
In order to be convicted on a criminal charge, proof is required of three things; actus reus, mens rea and causation. The accused must have the criminal state of mind relevant to the crime he is accused of. Intention is a far more blameworthy aspect than recklessness,
Civil law administers associations among individuals and a party who is wounded economically or physically by another individual or group can claim a charge in opposition to that unit. Conversely, criminal laws function below the conjecture that the society rather than a person, has been wronged by the defendant’s proce...
defenses and justification defenses. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Focusing on excuse defense, some examples are known as; age, mental disorder, automatism, mistake of fact, and mistake of law. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Mental disorder is defined as “disease of the mind.” (Lawteacher.net, 2014) This excuse supports that the defendant was not thinking normally at the time of the criminal act and therefor did not understand the act of the crime they committed. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Some examples of mental disorder are known as paranoia, schizophrenia, and depression. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Automatism is used as an excuse that the environment around the defendant caused them to commit the criminal act involuntarily. This excuse focuses on actus reus, and is hands down one of the hardest circumstances to prove in a trial. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Mistake of Fact is used in trial to downplay or eliminate mens rea in a criminal act that has been committed. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) The source of this excuse is that the defendant is unaware of the law that they have broken that will charge them formally. A very popular use of mistake of fact is used in deadly force because it is based off of pure judgment which may vary from one person to another.
Initially, the mens rea of rape prior to the case of DPP v Morgan a defendant cannot be found liable for rape if he had the reasonable belief that consent was formed between them and the victim. Which leads to an unfairness to those victims that have been violated, and also that any person accused of rape could say they had belief in consent. Although, it was shown not to matter how unreasonable that belief may have been, in concerning the knowledge or lack of knowledge of consent. Needless to say, the current law has attempted to improve and develop upon this concept, though it may not be completely satisfactory. The 21st century initiated a new state of trying to improve the current laws and precedents on the definition of rape, the prior precedent simply not suitable for the 21st century. Various cases after Morgan , prior to the act that redrew and reformed the Mens rea of rape, came to court and illustrated how the principle of Morgan operates. In Kimber the defendant (D) was charged with sexually assaulting a mentally disordered woman. It had to be determined whether his interference was in fact an assault, even with the D’s claim of consent to his actions, though she claimed otherwise. The court came to find that the mens rea for assault is intentionally touching a Victim (V), unlawfully, i.e. without consent. However, due to the fact that the D believed the consent was there, however unreasonably, he therefore lacked the mens rea of the assault and therefore not guilty.
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
There are multiple crime television shows that are based on a true story or fiction. A well known television show is Law and Order Special Victims Unit, which deals with rape and assault cases. This particular episode deals with a domestic violence case between a retired football star, AJ Martin, and his girlfriend, Paula Bryant. I will be using the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is an interview with the members in a household about reported and unreported crime that occurred within the last six months. “NVCS provides information of characteristics of victims, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status and household income” (Truman and Morgan). Official statistics like the NCVS would be used for comparing its demographics
The Mens Rea of a crime refers to the mental element or the state of
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.
A general intent is the most usual modus operandi for most of the misconducts. Under the general aim, the prosecution requires proving that the offender intended to commit an act in question (Herring, 2014). They are those offenses that have no particular mens rea component in them. The defendant’s act’s results are irrelevant in a general intent crime.
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.
Urbas, G. (2000) ‘The Age of Criminal Responsibility’, Australian institute of criminology, trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, no.181., viewed 20 March 2015, 1.
Criminal responsibility is the moral practice of holding an individual accountable for there crimes. This responsibility allows people who are found guilty of crimes to endure punishment or rehabilitation, which can vary in different countries and legal systems. This not only punishes and discourages crime but also allow people to see the tools of state power and the symbolic power that it has to show the community the consequences for the individual, at least when looking at serious criminal offences. This demand on individual responsibility also hold person to account for the conduct, and often society want a response that condemns remorse or regret for their actions and to reflect on their tort (Tadros, 2010). Although individual responsibility holds persons reasonable for crimes, there are certain circumstances which persons are exempt. For example, children under a certain age to not have the mental capacity of being responsible agents which refereed back to as the Latin term ‘doli incpax’, incapable of forming intent to commit a tort. In Queensland, the federal law surrounding criminal liability states that persons under the age of 14 are doli incapax (Australian Parliament, nd) This exemption can also be perceived with persons who have mental illness. These exemption are reasonable due to that some people are incapable of controlling or understanding their mental and physical actions, therefore providing reasonable outcomes for those don’t have mental guilt or physical capability to commit a crime (Australian law reform commission, 2015). This acknowledgment to those who don’t understand criminal wrongs in relation to Mens rea and Actus reas, caters to the society diversity and overall doesn’t make a person liable for a criminal act that they didn’t have the capacity to undertake.
In this essay, I will describe the elements of a criminal act, address the law of factual impossibility, the law of legal impossibility, and distinguish whether the alleged crime in the scenario is a complete but imperfect attempt or an incomplete attempt. I will address the ethical or moralistic concerns associated with allowing a criminal defendant to avoid criminal responsibility by successfully asserting a legal defense such as impossibility. The court was clearly wrong to dismiss the charge against Jack of attempted murder of Bert.
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 for a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of such defenses. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime.