Criminal Law and the Facts

Question: 1. The Latin maxim, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, is fundamental to criminal liability. In the case of Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476, Lord Hailsham stated that it meant that, an act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind be also guilty. Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law Directions (3rd edn, OUP 2014) 15. Explain the meaning of the terms actus reus and mens rea in criminal law. Evaluate whether Lord Hailshams statement represents an accurate definition of all the elements which should be proved by the prosecution in order to establish liability for a criminal offence.2. Annas girlfriend Epi is a professional photographer. Anna goes into Epis studio which is located next to their home and sees an unflattering photograph of herself. Anna angrily says to Epi, I am going to smash your digital memory card to make sure that no-one sees that photograph. Epi just laughs at Anna. Anna goes to the garage, picks up a hammer and returns to Epis studio. Anna takes the digital memory card out of Epis camera and hits it several times with the hammer. The digital memory card breaks into three pieces.Epi is upset, tells Anna their relationship is over and runs out of the studio. Anna is devastated and smokes a cigarette in the studio to calm herself down. Anna throws the cigarette into the waste paper bin, hesitates for a moment, then leaves the studio and the door automatically locks behind her. The cigarette ignites the waste paper and the fire burns Epis photography equipment and studio furniture. Usually Epis assistant works in the studio but unknown to Anna had called in sick that day.After returning home, Anna notices smoke coming from the studio. Anna rushes back to the studio but does not have a key to get in. She phones the fire brigade from her mobile phone and is told they will not reach the studio for thirty minutes. Anna knows that Epi has an important exhibition of life-size photographs next week and can see through the pa tio doors that the fire has not yet reached these. Anna picks up a brick and smashes the patio doors to the studio. Anna is able to save the life-size photographs from the fire. Advise Anna as to her criminal liability for criminal damage, if any. Answer: 1. Actus Reus is known to be a Latin word, which is generally used in Criminal Act. Every crime has two parts, one is the physical act of the crime and the other part is mental intent to do the crime. [1]Both are equal in terms when any crime is performed. Physical act of the crime is known as Actus Reus and the mental intent to do the crime is known as Mens Rea.[2] When any lawyer needs to prove actus Reus against the accused party then it is important that the accused is responsible for a deed, which is prohibited by the Criminal Law. In Actus Reus there is a physical activity, which is performed by the accused to hurt the other person or to damage the property. If there were a murder or a physical assault of any person then it would definitely qualify as an act of Actus Reus. There is another form, which is considered to be actus Reus that is omission. If a person who is left with an infant were not taking proper care of the infant then it would be considered as omission. In any case where a person is providing any harm to any other person is considered as Actus Reus. But there is one exception to actus reus. Whenever criminal actions are involuntary then this would not fall under actus reus. This would include those acts where any movement is made at the time when a person is sleeping or is unconscious. Any act, which occurs as a result of convulsion and spasm, would also not cover under Actus Reus. All these cases are not covered under Actus Reus because here the acts were not intentional and the person would not even know about it until it actually occurs. More the Actus Reus, Mens Rea is considered to be more dangerous because it deals with the mind. What the accused was thing at the time when he was committing a crime, how such thought came to his mind, and he has the intention to provide harm to the other person. It simply means a guilty mind, guilty knowledge or a guilty purpose. An act alone cannot create any criminal liability unless a person is accompanied with a guilty state of mind. How much Mens Area would apply in a case would depend upon case to case. In a case of murder it obviously requires a malicious state of mind and in the case of Larceny it requires a felonious state of mind. Nowadays whenever a case is being judged then the accused is also punished based on the requirement of Mens Rea. Like Actus Reus even in this case involuntary acts are not considered to be criminal. But if a person has committed a murder then mens rea would be completely ignored since it is a serious crime and he would be considered guilty. Even if a person has no intention to murder a person he would be considered a guilty. There was a case between Haughton and Smith, which was heard in the House of Lords. The case was about committing a crime of handling stolen goods where the goods were not stolen and an offence in attempting to handle stolen goods is committed in the same circumstances. As per Lord Hailsham there would be an attempt to committing a crime if the act was completed. But if a person were going to do something, which is afterwards done, which is not a crime then it would not be considered as an attempt to commit a crime. [3]Apart from this lord Hailsham had also made a statement that any act done by a person would not make him guilty of crime unless his mind is also guilty. It is very important that a mans mind should also have the guilt. He quoted it is thus not the actus which is reus but the man and his mind respectively [4] The statement, which was given by Hailsham, was in-line with all the elements, which should be proved by the prosecution in order to establish liability of a criminal offence. He correctly quoted that unless and until a person is having a criminal mind how can he be convicted by the court of committing a crime. As we have already discussed above that crime involves both physical act and mental ability. The person will do physical act only when he is mentally prepared for it. The present case is just the case for handling stolen goods; it was not the case of a murder so the exception of Actus Reus and Mens rea would not apply in this case. In this case it was important that one should prove that Smith also had the intention to handle stolen goods. Before the goods would have come to him it was already in the custody of police so he has not at all handled the stolen goods. Goods came to him in the custody of police, so at that time these goods would not be considered as stolen. Now sin ce these goods are now not considered as stolen then intention of committing a crime does not even comes into picture. In this case court also derived three propositions, which were: There is a huge difference between attempt in committing a crime and intention in committing a crime. In the present case respondent had the intention in committing a crime as per Section 22 of the Theft Act. So in this case there is no attempt in committing a crime since the goods were already in the custody of the police. In the present case the actual handling was not at all there since goods were already in the custody of police. There was no commission of offence since when the goods were handled they were not at all termed as stolen goods. This act mainly relied on constituting an attempt must not be an act preparatory to commit the completed offence but must also bear the relationship to the completion of offence. [5] After knowing about the definition of Actus Reus and Mens rea and also analyzing the statement given by Hailsham it can be concluded that there was no crime involved in this case. Only the intention of committing a crime was there but attempt to commit a crime was not at all there. If the goods were not in the police custody and it would have reached to Smith then it would have been considered as attempt in committing a crime. But since the goods were taken into the police custody even before it reached him, it would not at all be considered as stolen goods. So there is no question that Smith should be considered guilty in this case. For any criminal act both the acts needs to be proved to make any person guilty. But here one of the acts was not at all committed so it would not be considered as a criminal offence. [6] Hence Lord Hailshm statement represents an accurate definition of all the elements, which should be proved by the prosecution in order to establish liability for a criminal offence in this case. 2. Issue: The present case is between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. Epi is a guy who is a professional photographer and he also has a studio. Once Anna Epis girlfriend went to his studio and noticed something strange which made her very angry. She had seen an unflattering picture of herself. The most disgusting thing was Epi was laughing when Anna told that she would smash his digital memory card so that no one sees her photograph.so to smash the digital memory card she went to the garage, bought an hammer and broke the memory card into three pieces. Due to this Epi got very angry and in anger he told her that he wants to end this relationship and then simply went out of the studio. After listening to this Anna got devastated and so she started smoking a cigarette. After smoking she threw the cigarette in the waste paper bin and went out of the studio. While going out of the studio she had pushed the door and itself locked the door. The keys of the door were inside the studio, so it was difficult to open the studio from inside. Unfortunately the assistant who used to work in the studio was not there that day since he was on sick leave. After sometime smoke was coming out from the studio. It was due to the cigarette, which was thrown by Anna in the waste paper bin. After reaching there she found out that photography equipment and studios furniture was on fire. Knowing that the key was inside she even tried to call the fire brigade but unfortunately they wont be able to reach there until 30 minutes. Anna knew that there is an important exhibition next week of life size photographs. But fortunately those photographs were still not in fire but it could also be on fire if the fire is not stopped soon. Trying to safe those photos she picked up a brick and then smashed the patio doors of the studio. In this way she was able to save the life-size photographs from fire. In this case we need to see that whether Anna should be convicted for ant criminal liability or not. Since fire occurred due to her irresponsible behavior chances were there that she would be proved guilty for criminal charges.[7] 4Rule: To prove any person to be criminally liable he must first be proved guilty. Any criminal act consists of two main parts, which are discussed below, in detail: Actus Reus: it consists of almost all the elements of crime except the state of mind of the defendant. Generally it consists of result, conduct, omission and state of affairs. A conduct itself would be considered as criminal. Examples of conduct crime would be theft, rape, possession of drugs and perjury.[8] There are chances that conduct may not be criminal but the result would be criminal. Examples for result crime would be assault, murder, criminal damage and battery.in state of affairs crime it mainly consists of being rather than doing. [9]Examples for such crimes would be a person who is drunk while driving or being an illegal alien. In the case of omission crime there is no liability for a failure to act. Example for this case would be a small child is getting drowned in shallow water but his parent is not doing anything to save him. Such cases would not be considered as criminal. But there are certain exceptions to it, which would be statutory duty, contractual duty and dutie s, which are imposed by law.[10] Mens Rea: it consists of the criminal mid of a person. More than a physical hurt what is more dangerous is a criminal mind. To physically injure a person first requires an intention to injure that person. Unless an intention is there in a persons mind he cannot physically injure a person. [11]That is why a criminal mind is very dangerous. Now almost all criminal systems requires an element of criminal intent for mist of the crimes m=which are committed. Just on the basis of physical injury a criminal cannot be considered guilty. There are chances that a person was injured unintential then such cases would not be considered criminal. So Mens rea is considered to be equally important with the actus reus.[12] Application: As we have seen that in the present case Anna is being seen as a guilty person. But actual position was something else. When she was smoking in Edis studio she had just thrown away the cigarette after smoking in the paper win. She didnt even know that the bin would be having papers which in-turn would catch fire. But unfortunately due to the cigarette the whole studio was caught on fire. Even when she went outside the studio she closed the door but she didnt knew that the keys were kept inside. And even when she saw that studio was on fire she even called the fire brigade and after that she tried to save the studio as well by throwing bricks. At the end she saves the life-size photographs, which were going to be used next week by his boyfriend in an exhibition.[13] This act by her clearly shows that her act was unintentional. She didnt have the intention to put the studio on fire. It was just due to her careless behavior that studio was on fire. There was Actus Reus in this case since the property was damaged due to her careless behavior. She would be considered guilty if the court gives decision only the basis of actus reus, but apart from this even mens rea is considered while taking any decision. In this case she would not be considered guilty just on the basis of mens rea. She was angry after she had seen her unflattering photographs so she even broke the memory card. But she never even thought in his mind that she wanted to destroy Edis studio. She just wanted to destroy the memory card and which she already did it.[14] So as per criminal law if one needs to be proved guilty then he should be proved guilty in both Actus Reus and mens rea. But in the present case of Anna, she is just at fault as per the Actus Reus but not as per Mens rea. She never had the intention to put Edis studio on fire. So on the basis of this she would not be criminally liable in this case. Conclusion: on the basis of criminal law and the facts of the case it is clearly observed that Anna would not be criminally liable for the fire in the studio. It was unintentional from her part, it was just due to small careless behavior that studio was on fire. If she had the intention to commit a crime then she would have been guilty but since she didnt had any intention to destroy the studio, she would not be considered guilty in this case.[15] She was angry on her boyfriend so she broke his memory card. But nowhere she had shown her intention to destroy Edis studio. So in the present case Anna is not considered as criminally liable and should not be considered guilty. References Actus Reus' (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2016) https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Actus-reus.php accessed 19 March 2016 Actus Reus Lecture Notes | Criminal Law | Law Teacher' (Lawteacher.net, 2016) https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/criminal-law/actus-reus-lecture.php accessed 19 March 2016 Age Of Criminal Responsibility - GOV.UK' (Gov.uk, 2016) https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility accessed 19 March 2016 'Causation In Criminal Liability' (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2016) https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-criminal-liability.php accessed 19 March 2016 CASELAWYER (DENIS MARINGO): HAUGHTON V. SMITH [1975] A.C 476, [1973] 3 ALL ER 1109, [1974] 3 W.L.R. 1 HAYWARD (1908)' (Caselawyer.blogspot.in, 2016) https://caselawyer.blogspot.in/2015/01/haughton-v-smith-1975-ac-476-1973-3-all.html accessed 19 March 2016 Crime Library: Actus Reus | Crime Museum' (Crimemuseum.org, 2016) https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/actus-reus accessed 19 March 2016 Haughton -V- Smith, On Appeal From Regina -V- Smith (Roger); HL 21 Nov 1973' (swarb.co.uk, 2015) https://swarb.co.uk/haughton-v-smith-on-appeal-from-regina-v-smith-roger-hl-21-nov-1973-3/ accessed 19 March 2016 Haughton V Smith' (Vanuatu.usp.ac.fj, 2016) https://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/la205_criminal_law_and_procedure_1/Cases/Haughton_v_Smith.html accessed 19 March 2016 Haughton K, 'An Overview Of Disk Storage Systems' (1975) 63 Proceedings of the IEEE Ltd A (Allaboutlaw.co.uk, 2016) https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-actus-reus-mens-rea accessed 19 March 2016 Mangiafico J, 'The Independence Of The Actus Reus' SSRN Electronic Journal Mens Rea' (TheFreeDictionary.com, 2016) https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea accessed 19 March 2016 Mens Rea | Law' (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016) https://www.britannica.com/topic/mens-rea accessed 19 March 2016 Mens Rea In Criminal Cases' (1890) 4 Harvard Law Review Trends In Corporate Criminal Liability In The UK - The Latest Legal Features, Research And Legal Profiles - Who's Who Legal' (Who's Who Legal, 2016) https://whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/31747/trends-corporate-criminal-liability-uk accessed 19 March 2016 [1] 'Crime Library: Actus Reus | Crime Museum' (Crimemuseum.org, 2016) https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/actus-reus accessed 19 March 2016. [2] Mens Rea' (TheFreeDictionary.com, 2016) https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea accessed 19 March 2016 [3] CASELAWYER (DENIS MARINGO): HAUGHTON V. SMITH [1975] A.C 476, [1973] 3 ALL ER 1109, [1974] 3 W.L.R. 1 HAYWARD (1908)' (Caselawyer.blogspot.in, 2016) https://caselawyer.blogspot.in/2015/01/haughton-v-smith-1975-ac-476-1973-3-all.html accessed 19 March 2016 [4] 'Haughton -V- Smith, On Appeal From Regina -V- Smith (Roger); HL 21 Nov 1973' (swarb.co.uk, 2015) https://swarb.co.uk/haughton-v-smith-on-appeal-from-regina-v-smith-roger-hl-21-nov-1973-3/ accessed 19 March 2016. [5] Haughton K, 'An Overview Of Disk Storage Systems' (1975) 63 Proceedings of the IEEE [6] Haughton V Smith' (Vanuatu.usp.ac.fj, 2016) https://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/la205_criminal_law_and_procedure_1/Cases/Haughton_v_Smith.html accessed 19 March 2016 [7] Age Of Criminal Responsibility - GOV.UK' (Gov.uk, 2016) https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility accessed 19 March 2016 [8] Actus Reus' (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2016) https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Actus-reus.php accessed 19 March 2016 [9] Actus Reus Lecture Notes | Criminal Law | Law Teacher' (Lawteacher.net, 2016) https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/criminal-law/actus-reus-lecture.php accessed 19 March 2016 [10] Ltd A (Allaboutlaw.co.uk, 2016) https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-actus-reus-mens-rea accessed 19 March 2016 [11] Mens Rea In Criminal Cases' (1890) 4 Harvard Law Review [12] Mens Rea | Law' (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016) https://www.britannica.com/topic/mens-rea accessed 19 March 2016 [13] Mangiafico J, 'The Independence Of The Actus Reus' SSRN Electronic Journal [14] 'Causation In Criminal Liability' (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2016) https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-criminal-liability.php accessed 19 March 2016 [15] Trends In Corporate Criminal Liability In The UK - The Latest Legal Features, Research And Legal Profiles - Who's Who Legal' (Who's Who Legal, 2016) https://whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/31747/trends-corporate-criminal-liability-uk accessed 19 March 2016