Criminal Law: Actus Reus and Men's Rea in Homicide Cases

This document discusses the concept of actus reus and men's rea in criminal law, specifically in homicide cases. It explores the application of strict liability and the role of intent in determining criminal liability. The document includes case studies and relevant case laws to illustrate these concepts.

Criminal law

Contents
PART A...........................................................................................................................................1
PART B...........................................................................................................................................3
PART C...........................................................................................................................................5

PART A
Issue: In the present case situation, it has been analysed that Joe worked as personal trainer in
deadly lift gym. There he started training his ex-wife Cindy. They both just have separated their
ways, in spite of this fact Cindy decided she will get trained by Joe. Cindy left Joe for some other
man. Joe wanted her back, so he provided her with heavy lifting bar, so that his ex-wife could
fall down and he will come to rescue as a super hero. Joe was really slow and the lifting bar fall
down on Cindy’s neck an ambulance was called, but Cindy refused to take treatment. After some
time, Cindy died. In the other issue it was analysed that Karl and Alex was rivals and worked
together in deadly lift. They both met in their way Alex smiled at Karl. This was not liked by
Alex girlfriend Bella1. Bella took out a knife and Alex ran after Karl, Karl thought Alex would
kill him and because of this fear he got hit by a car. Karl refuse to get treatment. After some
time, Karl died2.
Rules: Most crimes consist of two broad elements: men’s rea and actus reus. Men’s rea
means to have "a guilty mind." The rationale behind the rule is that it is wrong for society to
punish those who innocently cause harm. Actus reus can be considered as guilty act, this is being
linked to crime. In this, the law has considered over act as a part of crime and in this the law has
taken into consideration the bad deeds to be punished and not the bad thoughts. In context with
criminal behaviour, actus reus and men’s rea needs to occur simultaneously. It has been analysed
that different crime takes into different intent into consideration. Therefore, it has been evaluated
that in order to prove larceny, prosecution must be involved in proving that defendant has an
intention to kill or has an intent to own possession on other person property3.
Negligent homicide means that person has an inattention towards some other individual
for duty of care. Like for example a drunk driver who accidently kills someone is been charged
with criminal negligent homicide. In this criminal law, specific and general intent are terms
which are used in order to define person condition of mind. In general intent, individual is been
engaged in doing something which is generally prohibited by law. In this prosecution does not
1 'The Four Types Of Mens Rea | Bruno Law Offices' (Tombruno.com, 2020)
<https://www.tombruno.com/articles/the-four-types-of-mens-rea/> accessed 14 December 2020.
2 'Mens Rea' (LII / Legal Information Institute, 2020) <https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea>
accessed 14 December 2020.
3 'English Criminal Law' (En.wikipedia.org, 2020) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_criminal_law>
accessed 14 December 2020.
1

need to establish that the defendant actually intended the precise result. Specific intent is being
linked to above and below actus reus of the crime and also it basically signifies an intentional or
knowing state of mind. In this the person do crime in knowing state of mind. In this prosecution
must prove that there was an intention to kill someone. This needs to be proved. In this
recklessness and negligence is also been included. Intent is not related to strict liability crime. It
has been analysed that for strict liability it is really necessary for prosecutor to prove that
forbidden act has been occurred. Actus reus includes a voluntary act.
Applicability: In this situation actus reus and men’s rea can be taken for criminal liability. In
first case situation of Joe and Cindy, he can be charged for criminal prosecution. In this Joe knew
that if he will not reach on time, Cindy would get injured. It can be considered as an intentional
act. This could lead to even death of Cindy, so Joe can be taken from criminal prosecution. In
this Joe was voluntary engaged in doing such thing4. Men’s rea is also been considerable in this,
it has been evaluated that in this person mental state and intention is to commit crime. Joe was
involved in doing such aspects as Cindy left her for other man. This led to aggression inside Joe.
It has also been analysed from the case study that Cindy refused to get treatment which led her to
die. In the other case Alex girlfriend did not liked Karl, so they took out knife from the bag
because of which Karl got feared and because of this he got hit by a car. There was a clear
intention to hurt Karl because of personal grudges. Alex and Karl were also rival in Deadly lift
gym. In this prosecution needs to prove that there is a clear intention which led to Alex getting
hurt. It has also been analysed that someone who do not have clear mental state of mind and
acted irresponsibly is not been taken into criminal law. Strict liability is being taken against those
when a reasonable person acted negligently and know the substantial risk involved, then they
will suffer strict liability5.
Conclusion: From the above case it has been summarised that strict liability is being taken for
Bella, Alex and Joe. They have a substantial state of mind and knew the consequences of act.
They were still involved in doing the act. They had the clear intention of injuring the other
person, prosecution just need to prove it. It has also been analysed that these people were acting
4 'Mens Rea' (LII / Legal Information Institute, 2020) <https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea>
accessed 14 December 2020.
5 'What Is Mens Rea And What Are Exceptions To The Doctrine Mens Rea ?' (Srdlawnotes.com, 2020)
<https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2018/02/what-is-means-rea-and-what-are.html> accessed 14 December
2020.
2

like this voluntary. This has been done because of personal grudges and aggression against other
person. Both Karl and Cindy has been died because of their act, so it means they could be held
criminally liable.
PART B
To Bella,
You have been charged as a secondary party to the homicide, this is because you were present
when crime took place and also when Alex smiled at Karl, you said No man of mine should be
intimidated by that piece of trash. You also allowed Alex to take knife out of your bag. So, it is
appropriate to take you as secondary part to the homicide. This can be proved by case law v
Jogee [2016]. In this supreme court of United Kingdom changed their judgement related to joint
enterprose. The case law applied on this is Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKPC 7. It has been
analysed that in June 9, 2011 Jogee and his co-defendant, were doing party they were taking
drugs and drinking alcohol. Hirsi and Jogee became aggressive after consuming high amount of
alcohol6. During the night, they visited house of Naomi reid. She was in relationship of Paul
Fyfe. After some time, Naomi texted Jogee to not bring Hirsi back to her house. Minutes after
she texted they both were outside the house of Naomi. Fyfe return to home after some time and
hum and two defendants had an angry argument. Jogee was shouting outside the home and
supporting Hirsi who stabbed and killed Fyfe. First the case was taken into crown court and then
to criminal court7. No adequate judgment was being passed on this matter. Supreme court said
that the case has taken wrong turn. In a joint lead judgment by Lords Hughes and Toulson, they
said that convection under joint enterprise requires secondary party to provoke primary party to
do crim. Jogee was held liable for the murder of Paul and was considered as secondary part to
homicide. They also limit the judgement to knowledge test were they analysed recklessness of
concerned party. There were few questions which raised related to guilt of defendant party. It
was doing the defendant assist and provoked other individual to be involved in doing crime. In
encouragement did the defendant acted substantially with reasonable mental state of mind. The
result provided by supreme court says that Jogee was considered as secondary part to homicide.
6 The Court, 'Ruddock (Appellant) V The Queen (Respondent) (Jamaica) - Judicial Committee Of The
Privy Council' (Jcpc.uk, 2020) <https://www.jcpc.uk/cases/jcpc-2015-0020.html> accessed 14 December
2020.
7 (Supremecourt.uk, 2020) <https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0015-judgment.pdf>
accessed 14 December 2020.
3

On April 8, 2016 final judgement was being passed by supreme court, in this they said that Jogee
was to be held on charge of murder and also with the included evidence related to manslaughter.
He was being previously convicted for a minimum term of 20 years and then it was being
replaced by fixed term of 12 years. He was being released from jail in June 2017.
This proves that Bella; you are also equally liable for death of Karl. It has been evaluated from
situation that Bella motivated and encourage Alex to behave in that way. He was in his stable
mental state of mind. The above case law discussed has proved that Bella was taken as secondary
homicide to murder. It also means that this act was performed by Bella and Alex by totally
neglecting the outcomes. Negligent homicide means that person has an inattention towards some
other individual for duty of care. They both have an intention to do such act and also have
knowledge about consequences of act. Further it was also being analysed in this case situation
that Karl refused to take treatment. It has also been evaluated that they knowingly did this act, as
they knew and were aware of that this act will lead to consequences. This means that both Bella
and Alex has been charged for murder of Karl. They have an intention to do so. Alex and Karl
were also rival in Deadly lift gym. In this prosecution needs to prove that there is a clear
intention which led to Alex getting hurt. They did this act knowingly and recklessly. It will lead
to further consequences8. It was being analysed that both Bella and Alex held grudges for Karl
and this resulted to them threatening and leading to death of Karl. men’s rea can only be
implemented when the forbidden content has mere violation. In this strict liability will also be
taken on Bella as she is secondary party to homicide. This can be proved by case law which is
discussed above. Negligent homicide means that person has an inattention towards some other
individual for duty of care. Bella provided Alex with knife which they bought from super market
to cut vegetables. It has also been evaluated from case study that Alex and Karl were also rivals
in Deadly lift. Both will be held and charged for murder and the above discussed case law can
prove it. Men’s rea will be proved by prosecution and it can be different from offence to offence.
It has also been evaluated that in this case situation Bella can also be charged for manslaughter
and criminal proceedings. They have knowingly killed a human being even by knowing
consequences of act. Both the parties were in their stable mental condition. The accused was
aware that criminal act has potential danger which would result into consequences. Strict liability
8 'Regina V Jogee, Ruddock V The Queen 2016 | The Newjurist' (Newjurist.com, 2020)
<https://newjurist.com/joint-enterprise-regina-v-jogee-ruddock-v-the-queen-2016.html> accessed 14
December 2020.
4

will be taken against both Bella and Alex. It has also been evaluated that Bella was fully
supporting Alex throughout the act and it means that she is been held equally responsible for the
act which has been persuaded by Alex. She can also be charged for manslaughter. They have
knowingly committed crime.
PART C
In this part discussion will be made in relation to whether it is said to be true that R v Barton
and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575 and R v Hinks [1998] EWCA Crim 2105 show that the
crime of theft is no longer based upon the concepts of individual autonomy and subjectivity. The
case law related to R v Barton and booth is based the law of dishonesty on criminal proceedings
and conspiracy to defraud. It has been analysed that from the past thirty years, there were two
stage test which was been laid down. The principle was being covered from R v Ghosh [1982]
QB 1053: it was based upon that defendant perform dishonesty by the standards based on the
honest people. In this defendant is been involved in doing dishonesty, committing fraud and act
of threat9. Supreme court made use of Ghosh test for criminal dishonesty and this was being
taken into consideration for single objective test. In this task the court was been able to realise
that whether the conduct was honest or dishonest. In this objective standards were also being
applied for honest and ordinary people. The case study of Barton & Booth explained that they
were involved in exploiting vulnerable residents which lived in nursing home. They were
involved in taking advantage of honest and vulnerable people. They take large gifts and money
and also huge amount of fees were being charged from them, so that they can remain at nursing
home. There were exploitation going on of honest and vulnerable people. It was being analysed
from the case law that there was no proof that victim was been ill-treated and also it was
analysed that the victim gave the huge grant willingly. After some time, it was being evaluated
that both the defendants were provided charge of conspiracy and dis-honesty and even theft. The
case which included Barton was that he received money from genuine gifts and also it was been
analysed that he denied about the fact that he was ever been dis-honest. Booth also claimed that
they were not dishonest in their dealings. Both of them were taken to crown court. In this the
jury was making use of ivy definition for dishonesty and theft.
9 'R V Barton & Booth - Case Summary - IPSA LOQUITUR' (IPSA LOQUITUR, 2020)
<https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/r-v-barton-booth/> accessed 14 December 2020.
5

It was being analysed that the blame on Barton was that he dishonestly took lots of
money from the old rich and childless vulnerable elderly aged people. It was being analysed an
investigation began when one resident died and Barton sued her estate for £10M. it was bee
considered as one of the most serious case related to abuse of trust. In this case study Barton was
been given an imprisonment of around 20 years and also Booth was given imprisonment for 6
years by court. It was being analysed that judge has taken into consideration that court followed
principles of ivy instead of Ghost to pass on the judgment. The conspiracy to defraud is common
law offence for which minimum of 10 years of imprisonment is been given. In Barton case
unlawfulness was also been depicted. This was because as he was being involved in doing dis-
honesty and theft with vulnerable people. Ivey and Ghosh principles are being given for fraud
and theft. It was being analysed that according to Ghosh principle, if the right mind people
do not consider any act as dis-honest, then it is not being taken as theft and fraud. It has also been
evaluated that in case of Barton and Booth, they do not take it as dishonesty both of them said
that they have not done any kind of theft. The judgment was also not being based on Ghosh
principles. From this case law it is proved and theft is not based on individual autonomy and
subjectivity10. In this whole of the aspects are been taken into consideration. It was also being
analysed that Barton did theft and also defrauded innocent people. They were vulnerable and
could not make better decisions by themselves. I was also being analysed from the case law that
strict liability was been taken for Barton. This has made him victim and also because of this
severe consequence is been faced by them. The conspiracy to defraud is common law offence for
which minimum of 10 years of imprisonment is been given. It has also been analysed that there
are various positive and negative outcomes of autonomy. It has been evaluated that in some cases
people only think of themselves and not of others and are of involved in doing such things which
are not right in eyes of law11. It has also been evaluated that theft is not based on subjectivity and
autonomous. It has also been evaluated from above case law that Ivey and Ghosh principles are
being given for fraud and theft. It was being analysed that according to Ghosh principle, if
the right mind people do not consider any act as dis-honest, then it is not being taken as theft and
10 'R V Barton & Booth - Case Summary - IPSA LOQUITUR' (IPSA LOQUITUR, 2020)
<https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/r-v-barton-booth/> accessed 14 December 2020.
11 'Who Bears The Risk For Ground Conditions At Common Law?' (Daviesanddavies.net, 2020)
<http://www.daviesanddavies.net/construction-industry-news/who-bears-the-risk-for-ground-conditions-at-
common-law> accessed 14 December 2020.
6

fraud. In the case of Barton and Booth court has made use of Ivey principles instead of Ghost.
They made Barton liable for acts which was been done by him. It was also being because of this
both the defendants were held liable for the theft and defraud attitude. It was been analysed that
Barton and Booth both were held criminally liable and they were also given imprisonment for
acts done by them.
7

8