L17- Denials of an offence

Key Denials of an Offence

1. Lack of Actus Reus: Argues no prohibited act occurred.

2. Lack of Mens Rea: Argues there was no guilty mind, such as in cases of accident or mistake.

3. Alibi: Argues the defendant was not present at the crime scene and could not have committed the offence.

4. Mistake of Fact: Argues the defendant made an honest and reasonable mistake, negating mens rea.

   • Key Case: R v Morgan [1976].

Lack of Actus Reus

• Definition: Actus reus is the physical element of the crime, and lack of actus reus denies the occurrence of the prohibited act.

• Example: If someone is accused of assault but did not physically touch the victim, they could deny the actus reus.

Lack of Mens Rea

• Definition: Mens rea is the mental element of a crime. Lack of mens rea can be a denial if the defendant did not have the necessary guilty mind.

• Example: If a defendant accidentally causes harm to another person without intending to, they may argue lack of mens rea.

  • Key Case: R v Cunningham [1957] – Recklessness is a form of mens rea where the defendant foresees the risk but takes it.

Alibi

• Definition: An alibi is a defence where the defendant claims they were not present at the crime scene and therefore could not have committed the offence.

• Key Case: The burden of proof for an alibi rests with the defendant, though they must not prove the alibi beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Example: If a defendant was on video surveillance in a different location at the time of the crime, this could establish an alibi.

Mistake of Fact (s.5 Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Definition: A defendant may deny mens rea by claiming a mistake of fact, where they honestly and reasonably believed something that wasn’t true.

• Key Case: R v Morgan [1976] – A defendant may argue a mistake of fact in cases such as sexual offences where they honestly believed the victim consented.

  • Example: A person might pick up someone else's property, believing it to be their own, and thus lack the mens rea for theft.

Key Case: R v Morgan [1976]

• Mistake of Fact Defence: In Morgan, the defendant was allowed to rely on a mistake of fact defence, even if the mistake was unreasonable, as long as it was honest.

• The case illustrated that honest belief could negate mens rea in some criminal offences.

Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Law

• Mistake of Fact: A mistaken belief about facts, such as the ownership of property or consent, can negate mens rea.

• Mistake of Law: A defendant cannot argue a mistake of law (i.e., ignorance of the law) as a defence, unless a specific statute allows for it.

  • Example: "I didn’t know the law against theft" is not a valid defence.

Summary of Denials of an Offence

1. Lack of Actus Reus: No prohibited act occurred.

2. Lack of Mens Rea: No guilty mind, possibly due to accident or mistake.

3. Alibi: Defendant was not at the crime scene.

4. Mistake of Fact: Honest and reasonable mistake that negates mens rea.

   • Key Case: R v Morgan [1976].