Winesha U.

Smith
Sevens Heights District
May Pen P.O, Clarendon
Telephone: (876)288 – 9024
Email: wsmith.writings@gmail.com

Criminal Law
Criminal Liability

There are two elements that are crucial to determine criminal liability - the actus reus and the

mens rea of a crime. The correlation of these two elements are essential as the learned

writers of Smith and Hogan Criminal Law suggest very early in that leading text:

‘It is a general principle of criminal law that a person may not be convicted of a
crime unless the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt both (a) that he
has caused a certain state of affairs which is forbidden by criminal law and (b)
that he had a defined state of mind in relation to the causing of the event or the
existence of the state of affairs. The event or state of affairs is called the actus
reus and the state of mind the mens rea of the crime.

Smith and Hogan 10th ed., 2002 (page 29)

Actus Reus:

This refers to the conduct of the accused and includes acts or omissions, consequences and

surrounding circumstances, that is ‘the state of affairs’ must be such as to be able to attribute

responsibility to the accused.

Mens Rea:

This refers to the accused’s state of mind and includes intention, recklessness, gross

negligence and knowledge, that is, the accused’s ‘defined state of mind’ must have ‘caused

the event’.
 Winesha U. Smith
Sevens Heights District
May Pen P.O, Clarendon
Telephone: (876)288 – 9024
Email: wsmith.writings@gmail.com
Actus Reus Cases

R v Deller (1952) 36 Cr. App Rep 184

R v Dyson (1908) 2 KB 454 – In November 1906 and again in December 1907, D inflicted

injuries on a child who died on 5 March 1908. D was indicted for manslaughter. The child’s

death had occurred at a time longer than that required for D to be found guilty of

manslaughter. His conviction was quashed in the absence of an actus reus of the crime.

Mens Rea Cases

Hyam v DPP (1973) 3 ALL ER 842, (1973) 3 WLR 475

R v Faulkner (1877) 13 Cox Crim. Cases 550 – D a seaman, went into the hold of a ship to

steal rum from the cargo. He lit a match to see what he was doing. The match accidentally

lit the rum, resulting in the burning of the ship. D was convicted for ‘feloniously, unlawfully,

and maliciously’ setting the ship on fire. The Court of Criminal Appeal squashed D’s

conviction on the ground that it was wrong for the jury to have been instructed that D, acted

maliciously in burning the ship, if he was attempting to commit another crime. There was

therefore no mens rea on D’s part affecting the burning of the ship.

Where the actus reus exists without the presence of mens rea or vice versa, there is no

criminal liability. Hence the Latin maxim which sums up the principle: actus non facit reum

nisi mensir rea. This means that the intention and the act must coincide or constitute a crime.

The case that illustrates this is Thubo Meli v R (1845), where the defendants got the deceased

in a drunken state, then hit him on the head, intending to kill him. They succeeded in hitting

him unconsciousness, but believing him to be dead, they threw him over a cliff. He died

from the fall and exposure and not from the beating. The defendants were convicted.
 Winesha U. Smith
Sevens Heights District
May Pen P.O, Clarendon
Telephone: (876)288 – 9024
Email: wsmith.writings@gmail.com
The prosecution needed only to establish that at some time during the chain of events, the

accused had the mens rea for murder.