Topic 3 - Elements of Crime Flashcards
Actus Non Facit Nisi Mens Sit Rea
- ‘an unwarrantable act without a vicious will is no crime at all’
- person has to have a guilty mind to be guilty
- traced back to St Augustine
Words suggesting mens rea is needed in statutes
- intentionally, dishonestly, knowingly etc
What is concurrence in relation to elements of crime
Actus reus and mens rea must exist at the same time, otherwise there is no criminal liability
Difference between criminal liability and criminal responsibility
Thabo Meli v R
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Components of the actus reus
- conduct, omissions, circumstances and results
- voluntariness
- causation
Voluntariness
- act must be willed: Ugle v R (2002)
- results from accused’s control of their own physical movements
- conscious
- delibarate
Causation
- generally for criminal liability
- pros must show the def caused the result
Courts usually concerned with whether the accused’s act or omission was a cause - Issue of whether that act/ omission was a legal cause
Components of mens rea
- intent
- reckless
- knowledge
- negligence
Intent
- subjective
- accused must have acted w the PURPOSE of brining about a particular result
Recklessness
Negligence
The two burdens
- legal burden
- evidential burden
Incidence of evidential burden
- pros always bears it
- burden put on accused for general defences
Who determines what ‘reasonable doubt’ is in criminal cases?
- the jury
- trial judge shouldn’t attempt to define it nor elaborate its meaning
s 64(1) Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)
How explanation may be given
- explanation may include:
- reference to presumption of innocence
- burden of proof on pros
- not enough for pros to prove the accused is probably guilty or very likely to be
- almost impossible to prove anything w absolute certainty when reconstructing past events, and pros doesn’t have to do so
- jury can’t have any reasonable doubt about guilt
- RD is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt or an unrealistic possibility
s 63 Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)
Trial judge must explain “proof beyond reasonable doubt”
- … to the jury
- unless valid reasons not o
Case examples for voluntariness
- Ryan v The Queen (1967)
- Murray v The Queen (2002)
- Ugle v The Queen (2002)
Case examples for causation
Subjective test for recklessness
- was the accused actually aware of the risk, not if the SHOULD have been aware
Case examples for concurrence
