W2L6 Criminal Law: Actus Reus (Continued) and Mens Rea

Vocabulary practice flashcards covering Actus Reus types, state of affairs cases, voluntary and involuntary conduct, the defence of automatism, and levels of Mens Rea from Criminal Law Lecture 6.

Actus Reus (Three Types)

The criminal conduct requirement of an offence, categorized into: acts or conduct that the law recognizes as criminal and seeks to prevent, acts of omission, and states of affairs.

State of Affairs Offences

Statutory or common law offences that arise when a specified prohibited situation exists or where the accused is found in a certain condition, rather than from an active physical deed.

R v Larsonneur (1934)

A case demonstrating criminal liability for a state of affairs: an alien deported from Ireland was delivered directly into English custody, yet found guilty of being found in the UK without permission despite the situation not being of her own doing.

O'Sullivan v Fisher (1954)

A South Australian case establishing that an accused forcibly ejected from a pub onto the street was criminally liable for being drunk in a public place, because he brought about the prohibited state of affairs by his own prior actions and the police acted lawfully.

Voluntary Conduct

The legal principle that an act or omission constituting an actus reus must be willed, voluntary, and within the physical control of the accused.

Road Traffic Act 1988 s.4(1)

A statutory offence providing that a person who drives or attempts to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.

Involuntary Conduct

Physical conduct or omissions that would otherwise constitute the actus reus of a crime, but for which an accused cannot be held criminally responsible because it occurred without conscious control by the mind.

Automatism (Lord Denning's Definition)

Formulated in Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland (1963) as an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, including spasms, reflex actions, convulsions, or acts performed while concussed or sleepwalking.

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1963]

The authority defining automatism and establishing that an act is not legally involuntary merely because the accused lacks memory of it, acted unintentionally, or failed to foresee the consequences.

Simon Fraser (1878)

A Scottish case in which an accused who killed his 18-month-old child while sleepwalking and dreaming he was under attack by a wild beast was acquitted due to being in a state of unconsciousness, negating the requisite mens rea.

Special Defence of Automatism

A criminal defence concerning involuntary actions carried out by an accused who lost physical self-control due to external factors or internal causes.

Test for Automatism (Scottish Law)

The requirement that an external influence or internal cause must result in a total alienation of reason amounting to a complete absence of self-control.

Ross v HM Advocate (1991)

A Scottish five-judge High Court authority ruling that non-self-induced automatism caused by an external factor (such as unknowingly consumed drugs in a spiked drink) resulting in total alienation of reason is a valid defence.

Onus of Proof in Automatism (Ross v HM Advocate)

The procedural rule stating that once the defence of automatism is sufficiently put in issue, the jury must assess whether the evidence raises a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's ability to form the necessary criminal intent.

HM Advocate v Ritchie (1926)

A Scottish case in which a driver charged with causing death by reckless driving was acquitted under the special defence of temporary mental dissociation caused by toxic exhaustive factors outwith his control.

Mens Rea

The blameworthy state of mind or intention to carry out a criminal act required for liability, derived from the maxim that an act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.

Intention (Level of Culpability)

The most culpable state of mens rea, in which an accused consciously decides and deliberately aims to carry out a criminal act and produce its consequences.

Recklessness (Level of Culpability)

A degree of mens rea where the accused does not actively intend to bring about harm, but consciously takes an unjustified and indifferent risk that causes criminal harm.

Negligence (Level of Culpability)

A level of criminal blameworthiness where the accused fails to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, causing harm without specific intent or deliberate recklessness.