In this scenario offences committed by both Gary and Mira, of which they can be found guilty or not guilty. The fatal offences in this scenario are murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. As well as considering the five main non-fatal offences which are, assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm , malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm , and wounding or causing GBH with intent.
All criminal offences have to comprise of the actus reus (every element that constitutes an offence according to the definition apart from the mental element) and mens rea (the metal element, the ‘guilty mind’) in order for the defendant to be liable. The only exclusion is strict liability offences. The actus reus and mens rea for each offence is different.
Firstly, in the scenario a battery was committed against Mira as she stood in the queue, the actus reus of battery is the ‘application of unwanted, unlawful force to the victim this can be applied directly or indirectly’ (Faulkner v Talbot 1981). The mens rea is ‘intention to apply unwanted unlawful force to another, or being reckless as to whether the force is unwanted.’ A battery is committed against Mira, however an assault was not because she was pushed from behind and so could not apprehend violence. The actus reus of assault is any act that causes another to apprehend immediate, unlawful, personal violence (Fagan 1968). Gary qualifies for having the actus reus of battery against Mira however, does not qualify for the mens rea, thus he will not be found guilty of the offence.
Secondly, as Mira ‘furiously’ turns around and says ‘What do you think you are doing?’ she may have committed an assault on Gary, depending on whether he apprehended immediate, unlawful...
... middle of paper ...
...te. She does obliquely have another purpose other than to cause harm GBH so does not have an oblique intention state of mind, however she qualifies for the mens rea for murder by having implied malice, which is the direct intention to cause GBH however death occurred as a result of her actions. This means that Mira has satisfied the definition of both the mens rea and actus reus of murder and is likely to be found guilty in a court of law. It is unlikely Mira would be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter because in order for that to happen she would need to plead one of four special defences, of which she does not qualify. She does not qualify for unlawful act manslaughter because in order to be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter, you have to have no malice aforethought element, which Mira has, therefore it is highly likely she will not be guilty of manslaughter.
Therefore, this case plays on the idea that, when an individual feels his or her life to be in danger, self-defence is accurate. In the case of Ms. Lavallee, both reasonableness and ethics were questioned. Since Ms. Lavallee is a victim of battered woman syndrome, when she pulls the trigger at that life-threatening moment, cannot be understood except in terms of the cumulative effect of months or years of being brutally abused. Overall, this case is an exceptional example of how self-defence comes to play within the criminal justice system. It is important for the law to revaluate cases for a better understanding of the balance of inclination over pain. For instance, although Lavallee was thinking that her life was in danger with action she committed, there is reason and story behind her crime. When the case is viewed from this perspective, it becomes clear that the battered woman’s knowledge of her partner’s violence was so profound that she knows the extent and nature of the violence beforehand, which allowed her to determine that this time it was different, and would probably result in life threatening
Men rea is used in determining whether an act is considered a crime, and is applied to an act if there is indication that the act was committed with intent or knowledge or a degree of recklessness. The mens era of murder is having malice intentions prior to killing someone, so the person has an intent to murder. The argument that helps support that Martineau did not have the mens rea for murder, is the fact that he did not shoot the couple, and instead it was his friend Tremblay who had fried the pellet pistol. Martineau cannot be held accountable since he had no malice intentions to kill the couple, his intentions were strictly centred with the break and enter, there is no evidence
In the Model Penal Code, section 2.01 discussed are the requirements of voluntary act; Omission as Basis of Liability; and Possesion as an Act. Mainly focusing on the “Voluntary” and “Involunatary” sections, first, stated is that “A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. Secondly, stated are acts that are not voluntary wihin the meaning of this section following as, “A reflex or convulsion; a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion; and a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.” These requirements correspond with the Latin term “Actus Reus” which is a term used to describe a criminal act. Actus Reus is the wrongful dead that compromises the physical components of a crime. There is a fundamental principle stated in the case textbook that criminal liability always entails an “Actus Reus”, that is, “the commission of some voluntary act that is prohibited by law.”
She tells him “I did that for you, how do you show up for me?” However, Gary had no idea that she felt this way because she never stood up to him and told him. Her passive nature made it so she never shared her feelings with him in order to smooth away any conflict. This just made her bottle everything up until she eventually exploded.
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.
...vidence of showing mens rea. The terms mens rea means guilty act, and if there is no proof to show that mens rea is displayed in this case, then the arrest should not continue. Neither of the men committed a guilty act of murder. Vaillancourt was not found guilty and the court decided that the accused was not liable for the death of the victim. Only conviction that should have been made was break and enter for both men. No murder was intended.
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.
Defences of Assault and Battery In most crimes there are always defences to the offence that has been
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
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.
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.
Attempted murder, involved the voluntary act of Jack pointing a gun and firing it (act) at Bert that resulted in (causation) death of Pratt (social harm), which proves the elements of actus reus. ...
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.
...ing able to control his actions. These defences result in very different results for the defendant: diminished responsibility resulting in voluntary manslaughter, insanity in a special verdict, and automatism in an outright acquittal.
The next day, Gary called her and said that he feels uncomfortable being around her and scared to even say hi. He asked her if it was all right if they would just be friends. She said sure, hung up on him, and started to cry.