It is clear from the facts it is a case of non-fatal offences against the person. They include assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm which is sometimes abbreviated as ABH, maliciously wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm and the last one wounding or causing grievous bodily harm. We will start examining the most serious offences which are committed by Cyril then moving to the least serious offences which are committed by Moby. It is noted that for there to have liability both the elements of actus Reus and mens rea should be present while committing the offences. From the facts of the case, we noted that Cyril threatened to hit Moby and even waved his fist in the air at him. From this point of view Cyril can be liable for assault. Assault is defined as a situation where one person creates fear of harm to another person . For assault to take place there is no need to apply force or make any physical contact with the person. The actus Reus here for assault is that there must be an act and that particular act caused the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force applying the principle set in the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) . Words spoken are sufficient to be qualified as an assault. This principle is set out in the case of R v Ireland; Burstow . In our case the spoken words of Cyril and the act of raising his fit in the direction of Moby have undoubtedly created fear. It must be noted that it is sufficient that Moby thought that the physical violence was immediate, here applying the case of Smith v Chief Superintendent of Working Police Station . As mentioned above both the elements actus reus and mens rea should be present for an offence, we now come the mens... ... middle of paper ... .... Another offence under which Moby might be convicted is s47 for he stuck Cyril on head causing him to pass out for a few minutes. Applying the case of T v DPP a momentary loss of consciousness is sufficient for s47. This is defined as occasioning actual bodily harm also referred as ABH. There are three elements for actus reus. There must be as assault or battery. We have already established that Moby might be convicted for battery. Another element is occasioning. Under this element we have to prove that the battery caused the actual bodily harm. Establishing the but-for test , Cyril would not have lost his spectacles and blow out if Moby did not stick him. The bruises caused by the yin can be charged under s47 . The mens rea required here is that of battery . As we have already establish the mens rea it is most probably that Moby might be convicted under s47
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
In the present case there are two possible prosecutions to discuss. Jerome may be guilty of ‘controlling or coercive behaviour’ under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. While Talia may be guilty of assault under section 20 or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861.
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...
Were actus reus and mens reus present at the time this crime was committed? Explain.
This will help to clarify the scope and nature of the crime in question. In criminal law, the actus reus is defined as the “guilty act”, which is the specific act or omission that is codified by the Criminal Code of Canada. The actus reus is easy to identify in the Buzizi case; a man has clearly killed another, so there is no need to question the occurrence of some type of guilty act. The crime was not “planned and deliberate”, so according to Section 231 (1) of the Criminal Code, Buzizi could not have been charged with first-degree murder. Instead, Buzizi was charged with was second-degree murder, as Section 231 (7) states that “all murder that is not first-degree murder is second-degree murder” (CCC). Thus, the occurrence of an actus reus is not the main legal issue of the Buzizi case, as it is clear and unambiguous. The generally accepted principle in criminal law is that “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, meaning that an act is not necessarily a guilty one if the accused does not have the requisite guilty mind (Week 5). Therefore, the issue of this case is ensuring that the Court correctly identifies the particular state or condition of the accused’s mens rea – the intent or “guilty mind” that coincides with the actus
The investigator first needs to first understand the “Model Penal Code Standard” that “actus reas is required to exist in unison with criminal intent” and mens rea is to have a knowledge or thoughts to intentionally, deliberately, and purposefully act to convey or cause injury
Your Honour in order for a person to be found guilty under the Unlawful and Dangerous Act of Manslaughter, there is a such requirement that one must possess one of two factors. The first factor being Actus Reus, meaning ‘the guilty act’. It also falls upon there being a faliure to act.
Actus Reus of Murder When a man of sound memory over the age of discretion unlawfully kills
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.
On June 7th 2008, Sarah May Ward was arrested for the murder of Eli Westlake after she ran him over in a motor vehicle in St. Leonards. Prior to the incident the offender had been driving the wrong way down Christine Lane which was a one way street. Whilst this was occurring she was intoxicated, under the influence of marijuana, valium, and ecstasy and was unlicensed to drive. The victim and his brother who were also intoxicated, where walking down the lane and where nearly hit by the offender. This prompted the victim to throw cheese balls at the car and make a few sarcastic remarks regarding her driving ability. After a brief confrontation between the two parties the victim and his brother turned away and proceeded to walk down Lithgow Street. The offender followed the victim into the street and drove into him while he was crossing a driveway.
Working through The Full Code Test within, The Code for Crown Prosecutors enables the conclusion to be reached as to whether Harry should be charged in accordance with s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm ('ABH'). For conviction, prosecutors would demonstrate the actus reus and mens rea of ABH, in this case that Harry assaulted and caused the actual bodily harm to Rob and reckless or intended the assault.
The mens rea of assault by penetration is the intention two commit an act of penetration where the defendants does not have the reasonable belief of the consent of the victim.
Mens rea is Latin for a guilty mind. Mens rea refers to what a defendant was thinking and what they intended when the crime was committed. Mens rea helps the courts and criminal prosecution to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally committed a crime (Mens Rea, n.d.). Mens rea is a basic concept in criminal law that refers to the mental state necessary for conviction of a given offense. The offenders state of mind at the time of the crime is often an element of the crime. The idea of a guilty mind has always been central to criminal law and courts (Hood, 2010).
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 from a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of said defences. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application.