Difference Between Actus Reus And Men's Rea

What is Actus Reus & Mens Rea?

The fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime is both a physical (Actus Reus) and mental (Men’s rea) element. The intent of this essay is to discuss these two elements of criminal law and provide explanation about how an Actus Reus (AR) and Men’s rea (MR) is formed; what constitutes an AR and MR; and provide cases where AR and MR is used.

Actus Reus, is “As an element of criminal responsibility, the wrongful act or omission that comprises the physical components of a crime. Criminal statutes generally require proof of both Actus Reus and Men’s rea on the part of a defendant to establish criminal liability.” Crimes that can be considered an Actus Reus vary in seriousness and is separate from the

In the case R v Miller; the defendant fell asleep drunk with a lit cigarette in hand, when he saw he caused a fire he left the room and went to sleep in another one. He was liable, not because he started the fire, but because he failed to put the fire out and call the fire brigade. So, by looking at this case we see that the AR of a crime and causation are very important in the outcome of each conviction. Causation in criminal law refers to whether the defendant’s actions caused harm. “Causation must be established in all result crimes. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation.” Factual causation refers to the facts leading up to the conviction of the crime this is where a ‘but for.’ test is used. In the case of R v White the defendant decided to pour poison into his mother’s milk with the intent of murdering her. His mother drank the milk and died. The twist here is that she died from a heart attack and not the poison itself Would his mother still be alive if she hadn’t drunk the poison? This is where the ‘but for’ test comes into play. With the final judgment decided as, his mother would still have died without consuming the poison, the defendant was only liable for intent to