#5811 - Coincidence Of Actus Reus & Mens Rea - Irish Criminal Law

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 assailant were to be excused merely because they believed the act was consensual, regardless of how absurd their grounds for that belief were.

• Lord Edmund-Davies (dissenting)

• The court in Tolson believed it was enunciating the general principles of the common law in requiring that a mistaken belief must be based on reasonable grounds.

• In light of its decision in that regard the same must apply to the case of rape.

• Lord Fraser of Tullybelton (concurring)

• The mens rea for rape is intention, whereas the Tolson case was concerned with an absolute offence which permitted only a narrow defence.

• Thus where the accused believes that his victim is consenting, he can avoid conviction even if such a belief is not held on reasonable grounds.

R v Kimber (CA 1983)

Facts

• The accused was charged with indecent assault of a female patient in a mental hospital, whom he believed had consented to his behaviour.

• The accused also indicated that he had not been particularly concerned as to whether she consented.

Issue

• Doctrine of mistake – Honest belief

Judgment (Lawton LJ)

• The judge should have directed the jury to be sure that the accused had never believed that the victim had consented.

• However, by his own admission he was indifferent to whether she consented, which constituted recklessness and was enough to ground liability for this particular offence.

Beckford v R (PC 1987)

Facts

• The accused was a police officer who shot an unarmed man, mistakenly believing that he was armed and firing at him.

Issue

• Mistake – Self defence

Judgment (Lord Griffiths)

• The rationale for a reasonably held belief test was that the accused was unable to give evidence on his own behalf – therefore the only evidence as to his state of mind had to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the act and all that could be ascertained were facts that pointed to reasonable grounds for belief.

• Thus without that rationale, the test should be one of honest belief.

Transferred Malice

R v Latimer (CC 1886)

Facts

• The accused struck at man but missed and hit a woman beside him, wounding her.

• He was charged with malicious wounding.

Issue

• Transferred malice

Judgment

• Lord Coleridge CJ

• The malice directed toward one person is enough to establish the liability of the accused if through their actions a third party is affected.

• Lord Esher MR (concurred)

• Bowen LJ (concurred)

• Field J (concurred)

• Manisty J (concurred)

Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 1994 (HoL 1997)

Facts

• The defendant stabbed a young woman who he knew was pregnant.

• As a result of the stabbing the young woman went into premature labour and the child died of lung condition related to the premature birth.

Issue

• Transferred malice

Judgment

• Lord Goff of Chieveley (concurred with Lord Mustill and Lord Hope of Craighead)

• Lord Mustill

• The...