Actus Reus (AR)

Actus reus is Latin for "guilty act" and is the physical element of committing a crime. It
may be accomplished by an action, by threat of action, or exceptionally, by an omission
to act. For example, the act of A striking B might suffice, or a parent's failure to give food
to a young child also may provide the actus reus for a crime.

Where the actus reus is a failure to act, there must be a duty of care. A duty can arise
through contract,[8] a voluntary undertaking,[9] a blood relation with whom one lives,[10]
and occasionally through one's official position. [11] Duty also can arise from one's own
creation of a dangerous situation.[12] Occasional sources of duties for bystanders to
accidents in Europe and North America are good samaritan laws, which can criminalise
failure to help someone in distress (e.g. a drowning child). [13], in this case it was held
that Since a PVS patient could not give or withhold consent to medical treatment, it was
for the doctors to decide whether treatment was in the patients best interest. It was
reasonable for them to conclude that treatment was not in the patients best interest, and
should therefore be stopped, when there was no prospect of improvement. It was never
lawful to take active steps to cause or accelerate death, although in certain
circumstances it was lawful to withhold life sustaining treatment, including feeding,
without which the patient would die.

An actus reus may be nullified by an absence of causation. For example, a crime

involves harm to a person, the person's action must be the but for cause and proximate
cause of the harm.[14] If more than one cause exists (e.g. harm comes at the hands of
more than one culprit) the act must have "more than a slight or trifling link" to the harm.
[15]

Causation is not broken simply because a victim is particularly vulnerable. This is known
as the thin skull rule.[16] However, it may be broken by an intervening act (novus actus
interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct, [17] or another unpredictable
event. A mistake in medical treatment typically will not sever the chain, unless the
mistakes are in themselves "so potent in causing death." [18] \
Mens Rea (MR)

The English fictional character Robin Hood had the mens rea for robbing the rich,
despite his good intentions of giving to the poor

Mens rea is another Latin phrase, meaning "guilty mind". A guilty mind means an
intention to commit some wrongful act. Intention under criminal law is separate from a
person's motive. If Mr. Hood robs from rich Mr. Nottingham because his motive is to
give the money to poor Mrs. Marian, his "good intentions" do not change his criminal
intention to commit robbery.[19]

A lower threshold of mens rea is satisfied when a defendant recognises an act is

dangerous but decides to commit it anyway. This is recklessness. For instance, if C
tears a gas meter from a wall to get the money inside, and knows this will let flammable
gas escape into a neighbour's house, he could be liable for poisoning. [20] Courts often
consider whether the actor did recognize the danger, or alternatively ought to have
recognised a risk.[21] Of course, a requirement only that one ought to have recognized a
danger (though he did not) is tantamount to erasing intent as a requirement. In this way,
the importance of mens rea has been reduced in some areas of the criminal law.

Wrongfulness of intent also may vary the seriousness of an offense. A killing committed
with specific intent to kill or with conscious recognition that death or serious bodily harm
will result, would be murder, whereas a killing effected by reckless acts lacking such a
consciousness could be manslaughter.[22] On the other hand, it matters not who is
actually harmed through a defendant's actions. The doctrine of transferred malice
means, for instance, that if a man intends to strike a person with his belt, but the belt
bounces off and hits another, mens rea is transferred from the intended target to the
person who actually was struck.[Note: The notion of transferred intent does not exist
within Scots' Law. In Scotland, one would not be charged with assault due to transferred
intent, but instead assault due to recklessness.]
Murder
Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human
being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder
from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human
being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, as well as the fact
that the commission of a murder is highly detrimental to the good order within society,
most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime
worthy of the harshest of punishment. In the US, a person convicted of murder is
typically given a life sentence or even the death penalty for such an act. A person who
commits murder is called a murderer ;[1] the term murderess, meaning a woman who
murders, has largely fallen into disuse.

Manslaughter

Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered
by law as less culpable than murder.

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the
mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where
murder requires either the intent to kill - a state of mind called malice, or malice
aforethought - or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death;
manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a
deadly situation.

Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary

manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the
differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind").
In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge
or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see lesser included offense).
The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or
manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion,
whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder.
Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the
accused has the required mens rea for murder.
The Coroners and Justice Act 2009

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25) is an Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom. It changed the law on coroners and criminal justice in England and Wales.

Among its provisions are:

 preventing criminals from profiting from publications about their crimes [1]
 abolishing the anachronistic offences of sedition and seditious, defamatory and
obscene libel[2]
 re-enacting the provisions of the emergency Criminal Evidence (Witness
Anonymity) Act 2008 so that the courts may continue to grant anonymity to
vulnerable or intimidated witnesses where this is consistent with a defendant's
right to a fair trial[1]
 criminalising possession of pornographic non-photographic images depicting
under-18s, and of adults where the "predominant impression conveyed" is of a
person under the age of 18 (see Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting
minors#United_Kingdom).[3] The Act makes it illegal to own any picture depicting
under-18s participating in sexual activities, or depictions of sexual activity in the
presence of someone under 18. The law has been condemned by a coalition of
graphic artists, publishers and MPs, fearing it will criminalise graphic novels such
as Lost Girls and Watchmen.[4] These sections came into effect on 6 April 2010. [5]

The Act contains measures to reform the coroner system. According to the Institute of
Legal Executives:

There is provision, carefully circumscribed, for the establishment of a judicial inquiry

under the 2005 Inquiries Act to take the place of an inquest, where there is highly
sensitive evidence (typically intercept) and it would not be possible to have an Article 2
compliant inquest. These provisions will be used in rare cases only. [2]

The most controversial aspect of the bill are the provisions regarding secret inquests.
The provisions had previously been mulled as part of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008,
though ultimately they were dropped before the Counter-Terrorism Bill was finalised.
Last minute concessions as the Coroners and Justice Bill passed through parliament
included giving the Lord Chief Justice the power to veto any requests for private
inquests and also the power to decide who the judge is. [6]

Hate crimes reform

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order
Act 1986 to extend hate crime legislation to cover "hatred against a group of persons
defined by reference to sexual orientation (whether towards persons of the same sex,
the opposite sex or both)."
To prevent that Act being used to inhibit freedom of speech on the subject of
homosexuality, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act also inserted a new section
29JA, entitled "Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)" but sometimes
known as the Waddington Amendment (after Lord Waddington who introduced it). It
reads:

“ In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual
conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such
conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to
stir up hatred.[7] ”

During debate on the Coroners and Justice Bill the Government attempted to repeal the
new section 29JA.[8] Clause 61 (repealing section 29JA) was introduced into Parliament
by Jack Straw on 14 January 2009. The clause was voted down by the House of Lords,
[9][10][11]
reinstated by the House of Commons,[12] and voted down again by the Lords[13]
before the Commons finally conceded that section 29JA could remain. [14]

Sections 52-56 of The Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary

manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

 Voluntary manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought
(intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which
reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily
harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of
murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation, however others have been
added in various jurisdictions.

The Homicide Act 1957 sets out three partial defences that reduce murder to voluntary
manslaughter; diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact. Sections 52-56
of The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 will amend, and update, the partial defences of
diminished responsibility and provocation (which will be renamed 'loss of control'),
however, these provisions are not yet in force and no date has been set for them to
become so.

 Diminished responsibility

This covers diminished mental responsibility for a crime falling short of the requirements
of the complete defence of Insanity. Under s 2 Homicide Act 1957 there are three
requirements for the defendant to raise the defence of diminished responsibility:
  The defendant suffered from an abnormality of mind at the time of the
killing. An abnormality of mind is ‘a state of mind so different from that of
ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’. [2]
 The abnormality was caused by one of the causes specified by the Act: a
condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, any inherent cause or a
disease or injury.
 The abnormality substantially impaired the defendant’s mental
responsibility for the killing. Substantial means the lack of control must simply
be ‘more than trivial’.[3]

Under s2(2) of the Act it is for the defendant to prove he suffered from such a condition
on the balance of probabilities.

 Provocation

Provocation was originally a common law defense to murder, but it was reformed by s3
Homicide Act 1957. There are two limbs to the defence, first the defendant must have
actually been provoked, and second the provocation must be such as would have made
the reasonable man act as the defendant did. Provocation can come from someone
other than the victim[4] and be aimed at someone other than the accused. [5] Further the
defense is not defeated by the fact that the defendant induced the provocation. [6]

 Subjective limb: provocation in fact: It is a question of fact for the jury whether
the defendant was in fact provoked. The loss of control must be sudden and
temporary,[7] however it can be the result of slow burn with a relatively minor ‘final
straw’.
 Objective limb: the reasonable man test: The provocation must be enough to
make a reasonable man do as the defendant did. The reasonable man has the
same sex and age as the defendant and such characteristics as affect the gravity
of the provocation to the defendant, but characteristics irrelevant to the
provocation such as unrelated mental disorders are not given to the reasonable
man.[8] Finally, the reasonable man always has reasonable powers of self control
[9]
and is never intoxicated.[10]

 Suicide pacts

S4(1) Homicide Act 1957 introduced the defence of suicide pact in England and Wales.
Parliament's intention was to show some compassion for those who had been involved
in a suicide pact but failed to die. S4(3) defines a suicide pact as ‘a common agreement
between two or more persons having for its object the death of all of them, whether or
not each is to take his own life’. The accused must have had a "settled intention of dying
in pursuance of the pact" to avoid him entering into a supposed pact with the real
intention of committing murder.
  Infanticide

Another form of voluntary manslaughter is infanticide. This offense was created by

statute in some countries during the 20th century. Generally, a conviction of infanticide
will be made where the court is satisfied that a mother killed her newborn child while the
balance of her mind was disturbed as a result of childbirth; for instance, in cases of
post-natal depression. It is a form of manslaughter, and carries the same range of
sentences as a manslaughter conviction. While infanticide is a separate offense from
murder, and not a reductive defense to murder (such as the defenses listed below), in
practice it works in much the same way as a reductive defense.

 Involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice

aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of
intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and
criminally negligent manslaughter.

 Constructive manslaughter

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based

on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the
commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It
occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act.
The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of
manslaughter.

For example, if a person throws a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below they
could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v
Newbury[11]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered
murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's
responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might
have been a minor criminal act.

Constructive manslaughter in English Law is committing an unlawful dangerous act

which causes death. The associated doctrine of constructive murder, under which killing
in the course of committing a felony led to a charge of murder, was abolished by the
Homicide Act 1957.

There are three requirements for constructive manslaughter:

 The defendant must do an unlawful act. This must be a criminal, not civil,
offence[12] and must involve mens rea of intention or recklessness. Crimes
involving negligence or omission will not suffice. [13].
  The act must be dangerous. Whether the act is dangerous is objectively judged
from the point of view of a sober and reasonable person present at the scene
who witnessed the act.[14] The defendant need not be aware the act is
dangerous[15] and the act need not be directed at the victim. [16]
 The act must cause the death of the victim.

 Criminally negligent manslaughter

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent

homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In
Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable
homicide might apply.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious
recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A
related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts
himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there
is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The
existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a
failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case
of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An
example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected
and the patient dies (R v Adomako).

 Gross Negligence

In English law gross negligence is the test for manslaughter. The crime was defined in
R v Bateman as 'to show such disregard for life and the safety of others as to amount to
a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment. [18] In R v Adomako the
House of Lords affirmed R v Bateman, and set out the five elements required for
negligence:

 A duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim.

 A breach of that duty.
 A risk that the defendant's conduct could cause death. [19]
 Evidence that the breach of duty caused the victim's death.
 The defendant fell so far below the standards of the reasonable man in that
situation that he should be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of criminal
punishment.

It is for the jury to decide what constitutes 'grossly negligent behaviour'.

Offences against the Person Act 1861

 Section 18

This section creates the offences of wounding and causing grievous bodily harm, with
intent to cause grievous bodily harm, or to resist arrest. It is punishable with life
imprisonment.

"18. Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever

wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person ... with intent ... to do
some ... grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the
lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of felony, and being
convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be kept in penal servitude for life ..."

This section replaces section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1837.

The offences under this section of shooting and attempting to shoot with intent have
been repealed. It is also no longer possible to charge the remaining offences of
wounding and causing grievous bodily harm as having been committed with intent to
maim, disfigure or disable as the relevant words have been repealed.

 Section 20

This section creates the offences of wounding and inflicting grievous bodily harm. They
are less serious than the offences created by section 18 and carry a maximum prison
sentence of 5 years.

"Inflicting bodily injury, with or without weapon

20. Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous
bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or
instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof shall
be liable ... to be kept in penal servitude ...."

This section replaces section 4 of the Prevention of Offences Act 1851(14 & 15 Vict.
c.19). The offence of wounding either with or without a weapon or instrument under this
section replaces the offence of stabbing, cutting or wounding under that section.

 Section 47

This section was repealed in the Republic of Ireland by section 31 of, and the Schedule
to, the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

In England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, this section creates the offence of
assault occasioning actual bodily harm and provides the penalty to which a person is
liable on conviction of that offence on indictment.

In the Republic of Ireland this offence has been replaced by the offence of assault
causing harm under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

Common assault

In England and Wales, the provision in this section relating to common assault has been
repealed.

In Northern Ireland, this section provides that a person who is convicted on indictment
of common assault is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. This
penalty was substituted by virtue of article 4(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice (No.2)
(Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and was previously imprisonment for a term not
exceeding one year.

Assault

Assault is a crime of violence against another person. In some jurisdictions, including

Australia and New Zealand, as well as the USA, assault refers to an act that causes
another to apprehend an immediate harmful contact. The word "apprehend" doesn't
equate with fear. While fear encompasses apprehension, a victim can be apprehensive
of unwanted contact, yet still not be in fear of it. For example, most people are
apprehensive of a cat scratch, but they may not be fearful of such an event. A
distinction must be made between the tort of assault, which is a civil matter, and
criminal assault, for which the state will prosecute a wrongdoer. Within the arena of
criminal law, an assault can result from an attempted battery. Since some attempted
batteries might theoretically occur when the victim is sleeping, unconscious, or
otherwise unaware of the threat, criminal battery can occur even when no threat is
perceived by the victim. With the tort of assault, in contrast, a perceived threat by the
victim is paramount. [1]

In some jurisdictions within the United States, assault may refer only to the threat of
violence caused by an immediate show of force.[2][3]

Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any intentional physical contact
with another person without their consent. [citation needed] In common law jurisdictions,
including England and Wales and the United States, battery is the crime that represents
the unlawful physical contact, though this distinction does not exist in all jurisdictions.
Exceptions exist to cover unsolicited physical contact which amount to normal social
behavior known as de minimis harm. Assault can also be considered in cases involving
the spitting on, or unwanted exposure of bodily fluids to others.

In most jurisdictions, the intention to cause grievous bodily harm (or its equivalent) may
amount to the mental requirement to prefer a charge of murder in circumstances where
the harm inflicted upon the victim proves fatal. [4]

At common law criminal assault was an attempted battery. The elements of battery are
(1) a volitional act[5] (2) done for the purpose of causing an harmful or offensive contact
with another person or under circumstances that make such contact substantially
certain to occur and (3) which causes such contact. [6] Thus throwing a rock at someone
for the purpose of hitting him is a battery if the rock in fact strikes the person and is an
assault if the rock misses. The fact that the person may have been unaware that the
rock had been thrown at him is irrelevant under this definition of assault. Some
jurisdictions have incorporated the definition of civil assault into the definition of the
crime making it a criminal assault to intentionally place another person in "fear" of a
harmful or offensive contact. "Fear" means merely apprehension - awareness rather
than any emotional state.

Battery

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault in
that the contact is not necessarily violent.

In the United States, criminal battery, or simply battery, is the use of force against
another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact.[1] It is a specific common law
misdemeanor, although the term is used more generally to refer to any unlawful
offensive physical contact with another person, and may be a misdemeanor or a felony,
depending on the circumstances. Battery was defined at common law as "any unlawful
touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in
motion by him."[2] In most cases, battery is now governed by statute, and its severity is
determined by the law of the specific jurisdiction.