Criminal Law: Analysis of Actus Reus, Mens Rea, and Criminal Liability

This essay provides a comprehensive overview of criminal law, focusing on the crucial concepts of Actus Reus and Mens Rea. It explains that Actus Reus, the 'guilty act', and Mens Rea, the 'guilty mind', are the two fundamental components of a crime. The essay delves into the maxim 'Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea,' highlighting that both the act and the intent to commit the act must be present for a crime to occur. The essay discusses the evolution and significance of Mens Rea, exploring its application in various cases and its role in determining criminal liability, including the classification of crimes based on intent. It also addresses exceptions like strict liability and examines how courts and legal systems use subjective and objective tests to determine the required intent. The essay references primary and secondary sources, including case laws, books, and journals, to support its arguments and provide a well-rounded understanding of the subject.

Registration No:
Word Count: 1501
Criminal law is the body of rule that outlines illegal wrongdoings, governs the arrest, accusing,
and trial of suspects, and establishes the consequences and action options for sentenced
criminals. Criminal law is just one of the tools used by planned the social orders to defend
specific interests while also ensuring the group's survival. A crime, according to the traditional
view of criminal law, is an act that is morally wrong. The goal of felonious sanctions was to
make the lawbreaker pay retribution for the harm he caused and atone for his moral guilt;
punishment was to be proportional to the accused's guilt. More rationalistic and realistic
viewpoints have dominated in modern times. Criminal law differs by authority and varies from
civil law, which focuses on quarrel tenacity and reimbursement for victims rather than sentence
or recuperation. Criminal procedure is a solemn certified action that validates the fact of a
misconduct and permits the offender's punishment or rehabilitation. Criminal law is
distinguished by the severity of the potential consequences or penalties for breaking its rules.
There are criminal elements in every crime. For the most serious offences, capital penalty may
be compulsory in some dominions.1
“Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea”, explains that any act must be done with a guilt-
ridden mind in order to be unlawful in nature. To felon the offender, it must be established that
the wrong act was committed with the intent to commit a crime. The aim of the suspect to do
the particular act is just as important as the act itself in proving the accused's guilt. As a result,
the mere directive of an illegal act or a violation of the law is insufficient to create a
wrongdoing. It should be used in conjunction with the existence of wrongdoing. Furthermore,
the mens rea is critical in determining the gravity of the wrongdoing committed. The
blameworthy mental state is the most important component. Its absence would render the
liability null and void. However, there are certain exclusions, such as firm obligation, to the
fact that there is no crime without a guilt-ridden mind. It is not essential to demonstrate that a
culprit influenced the relevant mens rea for the act committed under strict liability. Actus Reus
and Mens Rea are the two fundamental workings of criminal law. The wrongful act is known
as Actus Reus, and the state of mind that leads to such activities is known as Mens Rea. Actus
Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea clarifies the application of Mens Rea in criminal law. It
positions that an individual is only guilt-ridden of committing a crime if the act is done with the
intent to commit a crime 2. Crimes committed with specific intent, rather than unanticipated or
unintentional acts, are subject to harsher penalties. However, no violation of the law will go
unpunished. As a result, this maxim has been developed to distinguish between deliberate and
unintended illegal acts so that the appropriate penalty can be determined. In most cases, mens
rea is a necessary component of a crime. When the legislature expressly declares an act to be
criminal, however, the question of intent or malice is only relevant in determining the severity
of the punishment. A statute may be written to cover such a subject and make an act illegal
regardless of whether the act was done with the intent to break the law or otherwise to do
wrong or not. The legislature has the authority to make the mere act of performing a particular
1 Norton, Jerry and Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich. "Criminal law". Encyclopedia Britannica, 27 Feb. 2020,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law. Accessed 21 March 2021.
2 Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea – Legal Maxim By KOUSINI GUPTA .June 26, 2019

act a crime, regardless of how innocent the doer of the act may be from a mental standpoint; in
such a case, the doer must be held to be a criminal.
In the case of Brend v. Wood, Lord Goddard, C.J. held that, It is critical for the protection of
the subject's authority that a court remember that, unless an enacted law expressly or by
essential insinuation excludes mens rea as a component of a wrongdoing, the court should not
find an individual guilt-ridden of a criminal offense unless he has a guilty mind3.
The concept of Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea was investigated. The determination in
arrears of the acts is to be understood, according to the statement. In this case, all of the
offenses in enquiry required the presence of an purpose to oblige a deceitfulness offense. There
must be a deceitful intent to cause illegal loss to the distressed party and unjust gain to the
party who will be the main person of the inquiry.
The lawful import of mens rea sustained to change after it was espoused as a fundamental
value of criminal law. The decision in Regina v. Prince depicts the early stages of its growth.
The offender took an underage girl "out of her father's control," thinking she was of legal age
to consent. Lord Bramwell was satisfied that the offender possessed the mens rea required for
illegal obligation because the defendant's conduct was usually immoral. lord Brett, on the other
hand, believes Prince must have wanted to do to some degree an illegal act rather than just
corrupt 4.
In common law, crimes were also classified according to whether they required a particular or
general purpose. The classification was useful in the real world. A sensible error was always a
defence for a special intending to wrongdoing, but only a sensible error was a defence for a
general intent offense. Voluntary intoxication may be used as a defence to a special committed
crime, but not to a general committed crime. However, the difference has largely been
unrestricted because it was based on no comprehensible principle, making it problematic to
accurately regulate which group a wrongdoing fell into. Courts have increasingly discovered
that their preferred mens rea constructions functioned one type of mens rea to one component
of an wrongdoing while applying a dissimilar type to other components.
Mens rea's early ideas were not only undemanding, but also miserably unclear and unfinished.
They were unsuccessful to provide sufficient information to courts about the necessary liability
for a wrongdoing so that they could settle the cases that occurred frequently. When the mens
rea conditions is undefined or ambiguous, the courts must decide the exact culpability required
for the offense ad hoc and necessarily ex post facto. Element analysis allowed legislators to
recover from the courts the influence to define illegal obligation situations and, for the first
time, to deliver a detailed report of the liability was mandatory for a wrongdoing. The change
to component investigation, then, was less about changing traditional offense standards and
more about making them complete5.
According to Sayre6, current conceptions of mens rea did not exist until the twelfth century. He
does say, however, that the. psychological component was not entirely ignored. The nature of
3 The Modern Law Review. Vol. 16, No. 2 (Apr., 1953), pp. 236-240 (5 pages) Published By: Wiley
4 The Development Of Mens Rea - Offense, Law, Culpability, and Required - JRank Articles
https://law.jrank.org/pages/1583/Mens-Rea-development-mens-rea.html#ixzz6phI50n7Z
5 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 29 Issue 5 January-February Article 2 Winter 1939 Concept of
Mens Rea in the Criminal Law Eugene J. Chesney
6 Criminal Law, 9th Edition (1930) 287.

many early wrongdoings demanded that they be committed with criminal intent. Waylaying,
burglary, rape, housebreaking, and house burning are also examples of crimes7. If there is real
indication for example, if the accused made an permissible charge the court will have little
trouble launching mens rea. A subjective test would be satisfied by this. However, a sizeable
percentage of those accused of crimes refuse to admit their guilt. As a result, some impartiality
must be brought to tolerate as the foundation or attributing the necessary components. It's
always safe to presume that people of average cleverness are conscious of their physical
environment as well as the basic laws of cause and effect8. Cause cannot be a defence.
While the term mens rea has had no fixed, continuing meaning in law since the twelfth century,
its importance has been recognized and its influence felt. Thus, we can trace the development
and growth of mens rea in criminal law from an almost imperceptible beginning, which,
regardless of its merits, has left its imprint; an element that has changed and will continue to
change and evolve with time and an advancing civilization9. This mens rea requirement is only
applied to a small percentage of offenses. When confronted with the need to create unruliness
as the avoidance mens rea for guilt, lawyers in most legal systems depend on deeply on
impartial tests to determine the least condition of anticipation for irresponsibility.
Primary Sources
Cases
Brend v. Wood, Lord Goddard, C.J (1946)
Regina v. Prince, L.R. 2 C.C.R. 154
Secondary Sources
Books
The Modern Law Review. Vol. 16, No. 2 (Apr., 1953), pp. 236-240 (5 pages) Published By: Wiley
Criminal Law, 9th Edition (1930) 287.
Journals
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea – Legal Maxim By KOUSINI GUPTA .June 26, 2019
The Development Of Mens Rea - Offense, Law, Culpability, and Required - JRank Articles
https://law.jrank.org/pages/1583/Mens-Rea-development-mens-rea.html#ixzz6phI50n7Z
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 29 Issue 5 January-February Article 2 Winter 1939 Concept of
Mens Rea in the Criminal Law Eugene J. Chesney
The 'Lectric Law Library,The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
https://www.lectlaw.com
Robinson, Paul. (2003). Mens Rea. University of Pennsylvania Law School, Scholarship at Penn Law
Encyclopaedia
Norton, Jerry and Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich. "Criminal law". Encyclopedia Britannica, 27 Feb. 2020,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law. Accessed 21 March 2021.
7 Criminal Law, 9th Edition (1930) 287.
8 Robinson, Paul. (2003). Mens Rea. University of Pennsylvania Law School, Scholarship at Penn Law
9 The 'Lectric Law Library,The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
https://www.lectlaw.com