Criminal Law: Mens Rea and Actus Reus in Criminal Activity

This article discusses the elements of criminal activity, mens rea and actus reus, and their application in different cases. It explores the concept of culpable homicide and the exemptions in murder cases. The article also delves into the role of accessories in criminal offenses. Subject: Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW

PART A
Mens rea and actus reus are elements of criminal activity.
Mens rea is the intent a person has behind committing a crime.
Actus reus is the action the person takes to perform the criminal act.
Joe and Cindy:
In the given case; Joe cannot be put under Mens rea1; as he hasn’t any intention to commit such
crime. He just only intends to help Cindy, when she will be in trouble; so that he can come more
close to her.
Here, as an act of Acturs reus2; Joe take an action of accidently increase the weight of Cindy.
This action was not reflex or hasn’t involved any case of self defense. But at the same time; it
also cannot be ignored that Joe haven’t any intention to kill Cindy. Therefore; he can’t be guilt
for this offence.
On the basis of overall case analyses; Section 299 which is culpable homicide is applicable in
this case. According to which; a guilty party for a murder situation cannot usually be blamed.
This gives rise to the idea of a judicial homicide in which guilt was a legitimate motivation for
doing wrong. In these cases, the person is not usually deceived by law and can also be barred
from the allegations.
These can include death caused by self-defense or inadvertently by the fact or the law was well
executed and so on. As a result, the murder can be just as valid as unlawful. Legal murder can
involve legitimate and negligent homicide. Unlawful murder can include death from a broth and
negligent act (Sec 304-A), self-destruction (Sec 309) or murder by defect3.
1 Robinson, P.H., 1993. Should the Criminal Law Abandon the Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction?.
2 Smith, A.T.H., 1978. On actus reus and mens rea. Reshaping the Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of Glanville
Williams (1978) at, 95.

'In fact it is enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause the passage or if information is
included that the presentation made is fatal to the extent that it may doubtless cause death or the
actual injury that can cause death and exhibit such an act without Reason.
The offense of a crime adds to the murder when the show is over with the expectation that it will
continue to deliver in the cases indicated in these guidelines will make no difference.
Accompanying demonstrations can contribute to an accused murder without enduring a murder4.
Exemptions 1-5 in section (d) and (f) 300 identify situations in which guilty murder does not
equate to homicide, these are as follows:
 It is not a crime to endure murder if it is committed by a person who is declared stupid
and causes someone to die from serious and unexpected encouragement.
 It is not the fault of a massacre endured by a murder when the guilty party passes
someone while using his privilege for the private guard of the person and property on the
basis of a certain basic honesty
 It is not an offense to endure murder if a community worker declines someone as they
perform their duties and are subject to some basic honesty and accept that their
presentations are valid.
 It is not anyone's fault to bear a murder if one makes someone refuse to send him into an
unexpected battle in the bliss of energy in a sudden square
 It is not an offense to endure murder when an individual reaches his consent when he is
over 18 years old.
The idea of an "offense caused by the death of an individual other than the person being planned"
is published in Section 301 which establishes:
3 Smith, A.T.H., 1978. On actus reus and mens rea. Reshaping the Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of Glanville
Williams (1978) at, 95.
4 Swigert, V.L. and Farrell, R.A., 1977. Normal homicides and the law. American Sociological Review, pp.16-32.

An individual commits the crime of blaming when handing over someone else while trying to
kill the other person. Here the intention of the killer or to injure anyone who does not wish to kill
or injure is considered5.
On the other hand it cannot be ignored that; if Cindy agreed to take life saver treatment; she
could be saved her life. Hence, Joe cannot be blamed for her life and not found guilty for this
offence.
Alex and Karl:
In the case of Alex and Karl; Mens rea is the intention of Alex to Karl due to envious feeling; as
Karl was his competitor. On the other hand; Actus reus is the action of Alex of putting knife
against Karl for either kill him or injured him6.
But Bella is found main suspect; as she is the main reason behind this incident as she provoked
Alex to kill Karl with Knife and also give him that element from her purse and cheer him up for
doing so. At the same time; it can also not to be ignored that; Karl was injured due to car
accident but the reason behind this is the action of Alex; and Karl in his self-defense hit by a car.
Here both Alex and Bella is the culprit behind the injury had by Karl. This case can be treated
under Section 299 (Culpable homicide) and section 300 (murder); where they both have
intention to harm Karl by giving him injury to death7.
The cause of car accident cannot safe Alex and Bella; due to the fact that they are reason behind
this accident.
5 Crosby, A.E. and Lyons, B., 2016. Assessing homicides by and of US law-enforcement officers. The New England
journal of medicine, 375(16), p.1509.
6 Swedler, D.I., Simmons, M.M., Dominici, F. and Hemenway, D., 2015. Firearm prevalence and homicides of law
enforcement officers in the United States. American journal of public health, 105(10), pp.2042-2048.
7 Uniacke, S., 1996. Permissible killing: The self-defence justification of homicide. Cambridge University Press.

According to section 299 and 300; the punishing murder is the family and it kills its species. All
murders are for slaughter, but not so. Section 299 and section 300 IPC govern the meaning of
homicide and homicide8.
Wrongful killing is unlawful when death is caused by intentional display. Anyone who causes
death by appearing with the intent of causing the movement, or for causing serious injury as a
cause is likely to pass, or with knowledge that such of an act liable to provoke a trespass,
rendering the offense of murder defect9.
Except in the cases excluded below, homicide is a murder, if the show for which death was
caused ended with the intent to pass, or-
 If it ends with the expectation of serious injury thus the offending party may be making
the individual's way in consequence of the damage, or-
 If it ended with the intent to cause serious damage to any person and the actual injury
intended to be inflicted is appropriate in the course of the common nature to cause the
passage, or-
 If the person presenting the show realizes that it is so unavoidably dangerous that it must,
undoubtedly, cause death or injury that may be causing the passage, and display the such
action without cause to cause danger of peeling the passage or injury as previously
mentioned.
In additional to this; it cannot be ignored that if Karl refuse to take treatment due to religious
reason; his life might be saved. Therefore; Alex and Bella can’t be offence for murder or injury
to death in this case.
8 Mohanty, M.K., 2004. Variants of homicide: a review. Journal of clinical forensic medicine, 11(4), pp.214-218.
9 Menezes, R.G., Shetty, B.S.K., Kanchan, T., Menon, A., Monteiro, F.N., Salian, D. and Nayak, V.C., 2009. Culpable
homicide not amounting to murder as a cause of mortality in the district of South Canara-A scenario from South India.
In Homicide: Trends, Causes and Prevention (pp. 185-190). Nova Science Publishers Inc.

Part B
The issue is whether Bella can be supposed to be an optional gathering to the homicide of Karl.
It's critical to take note of that Bella, there is just one lot of decides that apply to every single
auxiliary member, those of standard accessorial risk delineated in s8 of Accessories and Abettors
Act 1861. Segment 8 subtleties four potential actus reus commitments that an optional gathering
can make to a chiefs offense. Phil can either have; supported, abetted, directed or precured the
chief offense10. In this occasion, the most probable utilization of these is that Phil supported john
in his offense by causing as post to guarantee that no one interfered with the offense. R v
Clarkson illuminates us that Phil is probably not going to have abetted or advised John on the
grounds that for both of these two to host happened , an auxiliary get-together should effectively
support the commission of the offense, and that simple nearness isn't adequate to have performed
either11.
The mens rea for accessorial risk was explained in Bella just like that will be that an accessory
means to help or urge the chief to perpetrate the wrongdoing, with the chief acting with whatever
psychological component the offense requires. The mens rea for homicide is affirmed in Woollin
similar to an individual should either propose to execute or expect intolerable substantial
mischief12. This goal can either be immediate – Moloney – want/reason, or roundabout, Woollin-
a practically certain result. As Alex was not in the activity to execute Karl or have any goal to do
same yet it was Bella who incited him to make such move and extra to this additionally give
component which is blade to do as such; here Bella essential mens rea13.
Before Jogee parasitic criminal risk of a second criminal offense happening offense happening in
the presentation of a concurred criminal offense, didn't require evidence that the optional party
proposed to perpetrate the subsequent wrongdoing. Or maybe, R v Chin Wing Sui asserted that
10 Sjolin-Knight, C., 2016. Killing the Parasite in R v. Jogee. Nottingham LJ, 25, p.129.
11 Parsons, S., 2016. Joint Enterprise Murder: R v Jogee. The Journal of Criminal Law, 80(3), pp.173-176.
12 Wei-dong, J.I., 2006. On the Formality and Substantiality of Legal Procedure [J]. Journal of Peking University
(Philosophy & Social Sciences), 1.
13 Mueller, G.O., 1957. On Common Law Mens Rea. Minn. L. Rev., 42, p.1043.

the necessary mens rea was simply that of examination of the second criminal offense. This mens
rea was additionally evolved in the conjoined interests of R v Powell and Daniels, and R v
English. Together these cases clarified that when it was a genuine chance that subsequent offense
would happen, optional obligation for the parasitic offense would be found, in any case, when
there was principal takeoff from their concurred criminal offense. For Phil's situation, this is
troublesome. From one viewpoint, Phil realizes that John has the blade, in any case, in contrast to
Powell and Daniels, there is no proof of any conversation of the blade could be conceivably
utilized for rough purposes. In any case, the lower limit of this test implies that pre-Jogee Phil's
conviction for homicide is more probable than post14.
Where at least two people are involved in a crime, the crime collections could be administrators
(D1) or support collections (extra) (D2). All crimes will have at least one end, despite the fact
that it is usually not possible to think or important to distinguish between principles.
A leader is a man who ends violent crime, for example by committing or causing the requested
mens rea act of the crime commission. In the event that at least two people do, they are co-
leaders.
An optional collection is that which assists, adheres, directs or obtains (regularly indicated as aid
or persuasion) D1 to commit the serious crime, not for the essential guilty party. Be that as it
may, an optional collection may be suspended and revoked as if it were a necessary culprit: a8
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
Selective risk standards can be applied to most crimes. Standards continue as before, regardless
of crime. Standards are generally used in crimes of brutality, burglary, extortion and open
solicitation.
The Court in Case R v Jogee15 outlined the basic rules applicable to all support service situations.
14 Al-Hakim, M. and Dimock, S., 2012. Hate as an aggravating factor in sentencing. New Criminal Law Review: An
International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(4), pp.572-611.
15 Esakov, G., 2018. R v. JOGEE: A CAS E FOR COMPARATIVE STUDY. Russian Law Journal, 6(1).

Researchers should be fully familiar with the decision in R v Jogee, particularly with the
standards set out in corridors 8-12, 14-16 and 88-99. The main focuses provided are described
below, including a nontrivial focus in Jogee, however this is important. A simple reference is
given to the subtitles and is not part of the decision.
Identification of the principal and secondary parties
 Where it is unusual to expect to show whether a party is a leader or a decoy, it is
appropriate to show that the particular respondent participated in this offense. [88]
 In any event, please note, where two people are accused of committing a crime and the
evidence does not clarify one compared to the next, and there is no evidence that they
acted in the show, the jury should say both: R v Lane and Lane (1986) 82 Credit |
Application. R. 5; R against Aston and Mason (1992) 94 Cr. Application. R. 180. See
also R against Lewis and Marshall-Gunn [2017] EWCA Crim 1734, where the sentencing
case was based on the assumption that the parties were joint administrators but not
balanced by the fact that it was a joint effort that involved the comfort or help of o16. Of
particular note are the important provisions of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims
Act 2004, which commit offenses to incite or injure a child under 16 or an incapacitated
adult.
16 McConville, M. and Marsh, L., 2020. The Myth of Judicial Independence. Oxford University Press, USA.

Part C
Individual Autonomy:
In Western practice, the idea that individual autonomy is a fundamental factor and political value
is a positive turn of events. Morally emphasizing one's ability to manage oneself, free from
submission to secret demand or its role in social structures and political institutions, is largely the
result of modern humanity in its very much a contemporary and political way of thinking In this
capacity, it is heavy in the discussions that this tradition has attracted. The possibility that ethical
standards and commitments, as well as the authenticity of a political situation, should be
incorporated in observing individuals, thinking of being separated from the different capacities
of spots, culture and social relations, welcoming ancestors of some seasons. Self-sufficiency, in
that phase, is above all at the center of (re) contemplation which shifts the mind of innovation.
Clearly set, being self-sufficient is managing yourself, being coordinated with thoughts, desires,
conditions and virtues that are not only distorted from a distance, but a piece of the can be seen
in one way or another as an authentic self. Autonomy in this sense seems to be a proven value,
especially because it is internal - driven by powers outside of you and unable to truly grasp. on -
apparently stamping the height of the malfunction. However, by declaring the states of
independence more accurate, a debate inevitably starts and welcomes the suspicion that
autonomy is an unjustified impulse for all individuals.
Self-government undertakes various works in people's ideological registrations, in the origins of
goodwill and responsibility, in defending social agreements and in different parts of the political
elite. It frames the center of the Kantian origin of reason to the ground (for example, Korsgaard
2004, Hill 1989) and, as such, is associated with questions of goodwill (Wolff 1970, 12–19). It is
also noted that the part of people that prevents or prevents father's transitions should be in their
lives (Dworkin 1988, 121–29). He undertakes work in educational thought and strategy, on some
perspectives that reflect the primary goal of liberal training for the most part (Gutmann 1987,
Cuypers and Haji 2008; for the discussion, Brighouse 2000, 65-111). Moreover, despite what
many protesters complain of perfect self-government, it is sometimes seen as a reasonably
important role in some female activist goals, such as identifiable evidence and an end to the

social conditions exploited by women and others. (apparently) incompetent individuals
(Friedman 1997, Meyers 1987, Christman 1995, Veltman and Piper 2014)).
Self-determination is fundamental in some ethical structures, both as a model of the ethical
person - the part of the person for righteousness with which he is ethically committed - and part
of the people who establish the commitments of others 'attack. For Kant, the personal burden of a
good, broad law underpins both a common commitment and the respect that others have for us
(and we owe it to ourselves). To put it plainly, a plausible definition - our ability to use
motivation to choose our actions - assumes that we understand each other as free. Opportunity
entails a lack of obstacles to our industry that is beyond our will, but it also requires that we use
law to govern our choices, a law that comes to us only for our will (for further discussions see
Hill 1989; for questions on this reading, see Kleingeld and Willaschek 2019). This disadvantage
of ethical law is self-government. Moreover, since this law does not have to be content with
consciousness or desire or some other unusual part of our being, it must be universal. From now
on we have (the key details of the sexual imperative), according to honesty being independent we
should act precisely according to those expressions that we can reliably do as comprehensive
law.
The story continues, at least: because the fact is that this ability (to spare oneself the ethical law)
is the definitive source of all virtues - honoring anything (instrumentally or characteristically)
which suggests the ability to make fruitful decisions for the most part, the most fundamental is
the determination of what is ethically important. Some non (self-produced) Kantian scholars
have made this result critical for their notions of self-sufficiency. Paul Benson, for example, said
that being independent implies a part of self-esteem because we should be able to rely on our
dynamic abilities to place ourselves in duties (Benson 1994). In any case, the Kantian position is
that such self-esteem is certainly not an invisible mental reality on us, however, inevitable
ramifications of activities aimed at the earth (Taylor 2005).
The events have happened for over 20 years and Barton has exceeded £ 4 million. After
describing the case as "one of the most convincing cases of abuse of trust that I think has ever
appeared before the courts of this country", the designated authority sentenced Barton to 21 a
year of detention and Booth to the sum of 6 years. 'Among the issues in Barton and Booth's

progress were: • if Ivey provided the proper way to deal with the fraudulent nature, the jury's
designated authority coordinated it a false case by citing Ivey rather than Ghosh for this position,
• the jury's respect for falsehood, especially (a) whether "illegal" or "irritant" is required much
longer the unreliable understandings reminding him of an illegal component for his or her object
and (b) if the offense complies with the valid warranty prerequisites of customary law and in
accordance with article 7 of the European Convention for Human Rights Protection (“ECHR”),
honoring the torture process .
The Court stated the importance of determining the "true state of knowledge or belief of the
attorney's facts" as interpreted by Lord Hughes following the "misinformation case was planned
according to Ivey by testing the respondent's opinion - their vision of the condemnation - against
which the principles of ordinary people are applied "[107]. Governor Hughes "under all
conditions known to blame and not limit the thinking to things that went wrong. Any case that
denies going around as the person fills a structure on part of the mental state was abstract, thus
modeling a piece exercise of discovery before setting the stage to aim at. This will involve
thinking, where important, of an accuser’s knowledge and experience. "What must be the way
the holiday is not included requires the transport corridor or a client who sincerely neglects to
pay attention to the fact sheets informs the scene evaluation of the scene, the defendant, who
must be ascertained by the facts before setting the objective on the status of the fact that he acted
fraudulently (the Court recommends that they did so without being seen as such)) [108].

References
Benson, Paul, 2005. “Feminist Intuitions and the Normative Substance of Autonomy,” in J.S.
Taylor (ed.), pp. 124–42.
Brighouse, Harry, 2000. School Choice and Social Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christman, John, 1991. “Autonomy and Personal History,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy,
21(1): 1–24.
Cuypers, Stefaan, 2001. Self-Identity and Personal Autonomy, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
Dworkin, Gerald, 1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Friedman, Marilyn, 1986. “Autonomy and the Split-Level Self,” Southern Journal of Philosophy,
24(1): 19–35.
Gutman, Amy, 1985. “Communitarian Critics of Liberalism,” Philosophy and Public Affairs,
14(3): 308–22.
Kleingeld, Pauline and Marcus Willaschek, 2019. “Autonomy Without Paradox: Kant, Self-
Legislation and the Moral Law,” Philosophers’ Imprint, 19(7): 1–18.
Korsgaard, C., 2004. Fellow creatures: Kantian ethics and our duties to animals. The tanner
lectures on human values.
Meyers, Diana T., 1987. “Personal Autonomy and the Paradox of Feminine
Socialization,” Journal of Philosophy, 84: 619–28.
Taylor, Charles, 1989. “Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate,” in Rosenblum
(ed.), pp. 159–82.
Veltman, Andrea and Mark Piper (eds.), 2014. Autonomy, Oppression, and Gender, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wolff, Robert Paul, 1970. In Defense of Anarchism, New York: Harper & Row.