Coincidence Of Actus Reus & Mens Rea Notes

Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Thabo Meli v R (PC 1954)

Facts

• The plaintiffs gave a man alcohol to intoxicate him and then attacked him intending to kill him, as part of a preconceived plan.

• Believing him to be dead, which he was not, they threw him off a cliff resulting in his death.

• They appealed against their conviction, claiming that the act of throwing him off a cliff was not accompanied by mens rea.

Issue

• Coincidence of mens rea

Judgment

• Lord Goddard CJ (concurring)

• Lord Reid (concurring)

• For the purposes of ascertaining mens rea the accused's acts can not be divided up into the assault and the throwing of the man off the cliff – the accused set out to all the acts to achieve their plan and as parts of their plan.

• The crime is not reduced merely because the accused persons were under a misapprehension at some time during their plot.

• LMD de Silva (concurring)

R v Church (CA 1965)

Facts

• The defendant was charged with the murder of a woman, having dumped her body in a river following an assault.

• The defendant was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter and appealed his conviction.

Issue

• Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Judgment (Edmund Davies LJ)

• It was open to the jury to find the accused guilty of murder, even if he believed that the woman was dead when she was thrown in the river.

R v Le Brun (CA 1991)

Facts

• The accused assaulted his wife, knocking her unconscious, and when he tried to lift her she fell to the ground, which fractured her skull and killed her.

• The trial judge directed that the accused could be found guilty of the murder or manslaughter of the victim, depending on his state of mind during the original assault.

Issue

• Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

Judgment

• The actus reus need not coincide in time with the mens rea where the unlawful force and the act causing death are part of the same transaction – certainly this is the case where the later act is designed to conceal the commission of the original assault.

• However if the subsequent act was designed to assist his wife then that was sufficient to break the chain of causation.

R v Miller (HoL 1983)

Facts

• The accused was squatting in a house where he accidentally started a fire by dropping a cigarette in his sleep.

• He awoke and having noticed the fire and went to another room where he resumed sleeping.

Issue

• Actus Reus – Omission – Arson

Judgment (Lord Diplock)

• Arson is a result crime – as such the courts should look at the actions of the accused and his state of mind for the entire period, from before the act which began the fire, right through to the point where the necessary result (damage to property) occurred.

• If the accused had been aware of the cigarette causing the fire immediately at the time that it did, he would definitely be guilty of arson – thus applying the above method of analysis, the accused is still guilty.

Doctrine of Mistake

R v Tolson (CC 1889)

Facts

• The accused was convicted of bigamy having married seven years after being deserted by her husband.

• At the time she had reasonable grounds to believe and bona fide did believe that her husband was dead.

Issue

• Mistake

Judgment

• At common law an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances, which, if true would make the act for which a prisoner is indicted an innocent act has always been held to be a good defence.

R v Foxford (CA 1974)

Facts

• The accused was charged with the manslaughter of a twelve year old boy after firing at what he claimed he believed was gunman who had just shot at his patrol

• There was some evidence that he had not held this belief.

Issue

• Doctrine of mistake

Judgment (Kelly J)

• In manslaughter, only when the accused makes a mistake of fact that is so wholly unreasonable as to amount to gross or criminal negligence, will he be found guilty.

• To fire a rifle at night without proper aim into a public street where members of the public had been and might still be about was such negligence as could ground a conviction for manslaughter.

DPP v Morgan (HoL 1975)

Facts

• The accused invited a number of his friends to have sex with his wife, assuring them that any apparent resistance on her part would be mere pretence.

• She did not consent and they had sex with her despite her protests.

• They tried to rely on a defence that they had been mistaken as to her consent.

Issue

• Doctrine of mistake

Judgment

• Lord Cross of Chelsea (concurring)

• If the mens rea with regard to rape is intention, then an honest but unreasonable belief as to consent is a defence.

• Lord Hailsham of Marylebone (concurring)

• A crime of this magnitude must have a mental element.

• According to the authorities, the crime of rape consists having non-consensual sex with the victim with intent – as an honest belief that the victim consented negatives this intent regardless of whether it is reasonably held.

• Lord Simon of Glaisdale (dissenting)

• In crimes of basic intent (i.e. where the mens rea and actus reus are closely related) the proof of the actus reus shifts the evidential burden on the accused, while in crimes of ulterior intent, there is no such shift.

• Rape is a crime of basic intent – the mens rea is knowledge that the woman is not consenting or recklessness as to whether she is consenting.

• Thus once the prosecution prove that the woman did not consent the burden is on the accused to show that he lacked the requisite mens rea.

• The mens rea requires that the belief be reasonably held for two reasons – a) a bald assertion of belief is insufficient evidence to raise an issue for the jury and b) it would fail to vindicate the rights of the victim if their...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Irish Criminal Law Notes.