Task 1

Introduction
Grievous hurt

Grievous hurt is defined in the section 310 causing grievous hurt defined in
section 311. both are explaing about bodiely harm. Section 310 define as who
ever causes bodiely pain disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

Normaly srimes have 2 elements. They are

1. actus reus
2. mens rea

all crimes are including in this cafe …….and section 311 of the penal code list out
the types of hurt which are called grievous hurt (replacement amendment act no
22 of 1995)
First: emasculation
Second: permanent privation of the sight of either eye
Third: permanent privation of hearing of either ear.
Fourth: privation of any member or joint
Fifth: destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint
Sixth: permanent disfiguration of the head or face
Seventh: cut or fracture of bone cartilage or tooth or dislocation or subluxation of
bone joint tooth
Any injury which endangers life or inconsequence of which an abdominal or
cranial cavity is performed

Emasculation

Removing or causing injury to male sexual organs it called emasculation this

renders im important. This could either be permanent or temporary according to
the injury

Permanent privation

This is where injury causes a person to permanently loose his eye site. The test
of private of primacy loose of eye site.

Permanent privation of hearing

It means permanently depriving the man of the hearing of one ear or both ears.
The injury may be a caused by a stunning below on the head or ear pouring
some.

Privation of any member or joint

Member means organ or limbs which is part of human being capable of disting
function
Eg eyes, ears, hands, mouth, nose
A joint mean a play where to more bones of muscles joint
Eg: shoulder, elbow, lungs, wrist, hips

Facts of the case

In this case david shoted fowl in order to kill. It was intention on that time ben
near to fowl. But he was covering by bush so that bush hide ben to david when
shooted the fowl. But that is not an intention and he also inexperienced shooter.
That he cannot shot properly and ben injured by david shoot.

So ben intends to file a criminal case against david for causing grievous hurt to
ben was a genuine mistake. Here david gave a body pain to ben.

So we are going to argue about david could be charge for levous hurt ot not

In this case david shooted ben that was not an intention. Hence he was gave
body pain to ben. So it is a grievous hurt. He could be charge but it is a sivior
punishment hurt but here we can see david’s rashness. When he try to shoot
fowl on that time he must want to see other side but he dint do like that. Hence
david is not a guilty of culpable homicide or not murder. As dint intent to kill and
steal it. Not to ben. David did not know he was at bush. Hence he was doing an
unlawful act body injury as ii likely to cause death.

In this david case relevant to grievous hurt but it is not a voluntarily causing hurt.
Section 312 of penal code point out about voluntarily causing hurt who ever does
any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person or with
knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person and does thereby
cause hurt to any person is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”

And section 313 of penal code provided whoever voluntarily causes hurt if the
hurt which he intends to know himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt and if
the hurt which cause is grievous hurt is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt.

Although david’s act is grievous hurt but it is not a voluntarily grievous hurt but
amounts to grievous hurt. So punishment must be less than voluntarily grievous
hurt because here held absence of mens rea.
The next one point is david’s rashness normaly. Rashness means irt is conscious
taking of an unjustifiable risk. It is a subjective racklessness. Here the accused
realizes the risk yet he per sists in his conduct and as a result he achive the
hurmful effect. Here if we can see clearly david’s rashness.

Support decided cases

1.4

Crime has two elements. They are

1. actus reas
2. mens reas

actus “non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” it self does not constitute guild unless
done with a guilty mind. Guilty mind must be proved for most criminal offences.

Actus reus + mens res = offence

The actus reus and mens rea will be different for different types of crimes
For example: murder the actus reus is the killing of a human being and the mens
rea is causing the death.

Actus reas

It is an action. Actus reus meaning evil or had deed and in many ways what
separates criminology from theology because as much as we might like to those
of us who work with criminals all the time can not be concerned with nor inclined
to punish bad thoughts. Government is not concerned with evil unless it is
manifested in behavior religion is concerned with evil as manifested in thought.

Mens rea

This is the most important element of a crime. This is a latin phrase adopted from
the latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”. It means no person
should be held guilty of a crime if his mind is not blameworthy. It is defined in
simple terms as any stste of mind which the law consider blameworthy the
phrase meaning to mens rea evil or bad mind. Several problems contribute to
this complexity. The penal code definitions of mens rea and indeed may be more
useful indefences to crime and finally to successfully prosecute a case a different
type of mens rea may be needed to help establish the actus reus concurrence or
other circumstance elements stated in the criminal statue.

Jurists who recognized mens rea to be an element of a crime.

Braction- describe a crime as done from malignity. Malignity is a malicious
intention.
Hale- strong/ healthy
Different aspects of mens rea

Intention
Negligence- without giving any care doing things
Rashness-

1.4

Mens rea

Generally, speaking is not enough to constitute criminal liability. This allows the
courts to impose punishment on those who acted with at least some awareness
of what they were doing.

Some examples are as follows

In murder the mens rea is intention only
In theft one metal element is intention- its additional element of dishonesty.

In criminal damage and niost non-fatal offences against the person- the mens rea
is intention or recklessness. In one form of manslaughter the mental elements is
recklessness only while in a different from of manslaughter the mental element is
gross negligence.

Intention

As noted above in many offences the mens rea required is an intention. However
intention doesn’t exist as an abstract concept. There must be proof of an
intention to cause a particular result

The following examples illustrate this

Murder requires as its mental element intention to kill or cause grievous bodiely
harm
In theft the mental element is an intention permanently to deprive another person
their property plus dishonesty.

However crime is charged the meaning of intent is the same an criminal law has
two types of intent.

Direct intention

Oblique intention
Directions on intention not always necessary. Most of the case mentioned above
reached the appeal courts because the trial judge unnecessarily confused the
issue by raising indirect intent in the first place. When this happens it invites an
appeal confused as lord bride put it in moloney.

Recklessness

It is similar to rashness. Rashness is conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk.

That mean subjective recklessness here the accused realizes the risk yet he
persists in his conduct and as a result he achieve the harmful effect.
Element of rashness

1. Conscious advertence to the risk

2. resolution to continue his conduct disregarding the risk
3. absence of justification or excuse for the risk

Objective recklessness

This is where a person is recklessness as to particular risk. Which if persists in

his conduct if the risk is obvious and either then put
1. He has recognized that there is some risk is involved and have never the
less persisted in his conduct or
2. he has not given any thought to the possibility of their being any such risk

Subjective recklessness

Recklessness

Recklessness is the mens rea state sufficient for many crimes some very serious
including manslaughter malicious wounding inflicting grievous bodily harm and
assault occasioning actual bodily harm

For a short time in the early 1980s it seemed that the objective test would replace
the subject test. But the original test began a comeback in the mid 1980s and
continued to reassert itself thrugh out the 1990s. finally in 2003 the objective test
was banished to the pages of history.

Support cases
Negligence

Negligence mean without giving any care doing things when an accused person
is unware that he is taking a risk but as a reasonable person he ought to have
foreseen the risk he would be deemed to be negligent. It is a mental element that
must be proved in order to impose liability on defendants in some forms of civil
litigation. In that context it typically means that d is liable if he or she fails to
appreciate circumstances or consequences that would have been appreciated by
the reasonable man.

Dishonesty

Section 69 and 72 of penal code of srilanka in order to punish the offender there
must be a mens rea.

Section 69 of penal code

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or who by reason of a

mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law in good faith believes himself
to be bound by law to do it

Illustrations

A soldier fires on mob by the order of his superior officer in conformity with the
commands of the law. He has committed no offence

Section 72 of penal code

Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who
by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith
believes himself to be justified by law in doing it.

In this case david shooted at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it. For this
purpose. But ben injured who is behind a bush. David not knowing that he was
there. Here although david was doing an unlawful act. He has no intend to kill
ben or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

Act of david shows that there is a grievous hurt to ben. But very important
elemant that david had an sole intention to kill the fowl for his purpose. But not to
cause injury ben according to section 69 and 72 of penal code of srilanka in order
to punish the offender there must be a mens rea. Absence of mens rea causes
no offences.

Therefore for every offence the element of mens rea plays a major role. In order
to that we can plea that david had no intention to cause injury to ben rather than
rashness on my view that absence of mens rea is david’s act not amounts to
voluntary grievous hurt. But amounts to grievous hurt. Here constructively
attributed to the accused person even though he had no intention to cause harm
and no realization that his acts had any sub results. But any how there no mens
rea and it shows david’s rashness. So the court will consider this one.

Decided cases

This truned on the distinction but specific and general intent. If it was general
then it would have tuned on whether it was an honest and reasonable mistake. If
specific then it was a valid defence whether or not the mistake was reasonable
under the circumstances. Specific intent an honest mistake of task is a defence
one who makes a reasonable mistake it is not negligent.