Actus Reus/Mens Rea Loose Ends

Question 1

Actus reus and voluntariness (2)

Answer 1

• R v Larsonneur
  o French citizen required to leave UK. Went to Ireland but deported and brought back to Holyhead by Irish police. British police charged her with being an illegal alien to whom leave to land in the UK had been refused. She had no personal freedom of action. Court decided circumstances of compulsion that brought about her return to the UK was immaterial.
• R v Winzar
  o Brought into hospital on stretcher. Hospital staff realised he was drunk and asked him to leave. Found slumped on street/highway drunk after being sent away from hospital. Police found him and arrested him for being drunk on public highway. All police had to prove was that he was drunk in a public place, how he came to be there was irrelevant
• Both cases defendants did not perform voluntary act that became criminal offence – other people got them into situation that then became criminal offence. Or could claim that there was a voluntary act – Larsonneur did not have correct documents to be in UK and Winzar got himself so drunk. Also could have both been at fault in earlier conduct and so justified in holding them liable based on earlier fault

Question 2

Transferred malice (3)

Answer 2

• If D with the mens rea for a particular crime, causes the actus reus of the same crime, he is guilty, even though the result, is in some respects, an unintended one
• Latimer
  o D had quarrel in pub with X. D took off belt and aimed blow at X but instead hit bystander and injured her. Found guilty of unlawfully and maliciously wounding victim. Court said had the mens rea of the crime and had caused the actus rea of the same crime. While had not intended the outcome he could still be found guilty due to transferred malice
• Pembliton
  o D in fight outside pub. Threw stone at people fighting with but missed and broke window. Court held that transferred malice did not apply as actus reus (causing criminal damage) was different to the mens rea that he had (to hurt the people)
• AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994)
  o D was boyfriend of young woman who was pregnant. Had argument and stabbed her in face, back and abdomen. He intended to harm the girlfriend. She survived but gave birth prematurely and baby only lived for 100 days and died. Sentenced for GBH to woman and when baby died was charged with murder. Pleaded not guilty.
  o Court decided that it was not possible to apply transferred malice as we would need double transfer – first from mother to foetus (who is not protected by law of murder) and transfer from foetus to the child it would become. Transferred malice that was intended to happen to first person but did not happen then happened to second person but was not intended – treat actual victim as though they had been intended victim – this would not work on these particular facts – he had intended no harm to the foetus or human it would become

Question 3

Coincidence (4 cases, 1 academic)

Answer 3

• In order to be liable for a criminal offence D must possess the necessary mens rea at the time he commits the actus reus – mens rea and actus reus must coincide
• Fagan – continuing act
  o If the act is a continuing act, there is a continuing threat to inflict unlawful force….It is not necessary that the mens rea should be present at the inception of the actus reus, it can be superimposed on an existing act
• Thabo Meli v R – series of acts
  o 2 D’s planned to murder victim. Took V to hut, gave beer, hit over head. Thinking he was dead, rolled body over cliff to make it look like accident. D was actually still alive at this point then died from exposure overnight. Ds guilty of murder but appealed arguing that although first act of hitting victim over head had been performed with correct mens rea (intention to kill/cause GBH) it was not the actual cause of death – cause of death was rolling over low cliff and leaving him there – at that point they had no mens rea as they already thought he was dead.
  o Privy Council said impossible to divide up what was really one series of acts – the actus reus and mens rea coincided
• Church – series of acts
  o D threw woman into river after knocking her unconscious. He thought he was disposing of dead body but woman was not actually dead and instead died from drowning – was convicted of manslaughter on basis that his acts were part of serious of acts designed to cause harm
• Le Brun – series of acts
  o D and wife walking home together. Hits wife on jaw, knocking her unconscious. Did not intend to cause her serious harm but in a moment of panic he carries her away and accidently drops her and hit head and fractured skull which caused her death. Convicted of manslaughter and appeals. Claimed actus reus and mens rea do not coincide. CofA applied Thabo Meli – where the unlawful application of force and actual event causing death are part of same sequence of events, the fact there was an interval of time between two does not serve to exonerate D’s liability.
• Wells critical commentary for coincidence
  o We should be treating coincidence as a causation issue