Notes

Elements of crime

Every Crime has its own actus rea and mens rea. The persecution of the suspects must prove that there was actus rea and mens rea in each criminal offence charged with to prove the defendant is guilty. Actus Rea means the guilty act of the crime and the Mens Rea means the guilty mind part of the crime.

Actus Rea

Actus Rea includes, a physical act, a failure to to act (an omission) and State Affairs. For some cases, the Actus Reus must have an act /omission and result in a consequence. In non-fatal offence the consequence will be the injury that the victim has sustained/suffered.
If the defendant has zero control over their action they have not committed Actus Reus. This would then be applicable if somebody accidentally hit someone due to a sudden reflex or a muscle spasm. Being able to control your actions is an important part of crime as it shows fault.
If there is no fault then the defendant is not liable.

Omissions as Actus Reus:
It is possible that there is failure to act which is also known as an omission in a crime, this would be classified as the Actus Reus. This is evident in the case R v Miller (1983), the defendant had dropped a cigarette onto a mattress which caught light when he was sleeping. When he woke up he saw the fire therefore meaning he had a duty to put it out, although he did not, he only moved to another room and let the fire spread further. He had a duty to act but didn't, which caused the Actus Reus, this was considered a single continuing act by the Court as he failed to act.

Causation:
It is vital for there to be a defendant's conduct to the end result, i.e either injury or in worse cases, death. This is what we call the chain of causation, in order for a consequence to be efficiently provide the prosecution must show three things, these include: that the defendant's conduct was the cause of that consequence, the defendant's conduct was in Law the cause of that consequence and that there was no intervening act which had broken the chain of causation.

Factual Case:
The defendant can only be found guilty if there is proof that their consequence wouldn't have happened if he didn't commit his actions.

Cause in Law:
In some cases there may be two peoples actions which could have contributed to the consequence. The defendant can be found guilty even if it was not only them causing the incident. There is a rule which means that the defendant's actions have to be more than a minimal case but it does not need to be a substantial case. The defendant must also take the victim as they find, which is known as the, 'thin skull rule, meaning if the victim has something unusual about their mental and/or physical state of being that makes an injury more serious then the defendant will be more liable for serious injury.
Intervening acts:

An intervening act (a novus actus interveniens,) may perhaps potentially break the chain of causation which will mean that the defendant will not be found guilty. However if the given response is unreasonable or the victim does something which is completely out of nowhere they will break the chain of causation by the Novus Actus.