Criminal AR and MR

Actus Reus

Guilty Act, either physical or omission (failing to do something)

Mens Rea

Guilty Mind, the inention or mental elements (it is subjective)

For prosecution to occur

Both AR and MR must happen at the same time

Contemporarity

Both the AR and the MR should be present at the same time for the act to have occured, usally not an issue

Fagan

The issue in this case was weather the AR actually occure/MR. This is because the act of physically driving on the the officers foot was accident but then the act of sititng there was. This is when decided that if it is a continuous act such as staying there then the MR can develop throughout the

Contemporatirty

Fagan a good example that if continous the MR can develop throughout the AR however it can not develop after it must develop with the act.

Omissions

Failure to do something

Express liability

where it is specifcally stated in a statue

Implied liablity

harder to get through but it mus be implied that one should be guilty for failure to do something

R v Miller

Libale under an omission of implied liablity- this is because the failure to take action when he was aware of the issue is a blamewirthy offence

Status Offences

• Situational offence

• Prosecution is not required to prove any action/omission

• AR is simply satsfied by meeting the condition laid down in law

R v Larsonneur

Was charged with being in englnad even though beyond her control however because she was “found” in england. This is a status offence

Kilbridge v Lake

Satus offence: wof fell off after he had arrived judge said that he cant be guilty because the omission for the case was failing to however would be absurd to have to watch the car all the time.

Burden of Proof

• Prosecution must prove ll the elements of the offence and they must do it beyond reasonable doubt

• Persuasive Burden of proof

• Presumption of innocent  (section 25 NZBORA)

Elements of AR

Result, omission, act, status affair

Elements to MR

• Intention, knowledge, recklessness

Intention

applies to offences that require proof of a consequence/result

knowledge

the prosecution has to prove that the defendant knows something in the context of offending

recklesness

applies to both consequences and circumstances offences

Determining MR

What form of MR required, requirments of that form, on facts does defendant meet that requirment

Intention

not defined by statue

2 types:

• direct intention: acts which intend to bring about a particualr result

• Oblique: doesnt act with actual intent of bringing about a consequence but it is foreseeable

R v Woolin Facts

Threw a 3 month old to the floor and it died

R v Woolin Issue

Weather they intended to kill the baby

the court directed the jury that he must have seen the foreseeable risk, jury convicted of murder. The house of lords however qaushed it by saying that direct intent, vs virtual certianty then substatial risk. foresight alone does not = intention but it allows for the jury to infer

Knowledge

applies to conduct offence, assessed subjectivley, not defined by statue

R v Crooks Facts

crooks flatted with bell, bell commited robberey and stole $6000 and spirits, he owedcrooks money when flat was searched money found in crooks bag. Crooks assumed it was stolen. charged with knowingly possessing stolen goods

R v Crooks reasoning

He was guilty, knowledge is wilful blindness to the thing, The belief is more then the mere intiution or suspicion, delibertly not enquring means you can be liable

Martin facts

Martin was found to have multiple statues containing cocaine in them when she went through border patrol. She claims that she did not know that they were there rather

Martin reasoning

The court of appeal here found her guilty because of wilful blindness she did not take any actions that a reasonable person would have intstead she ran the risk with the knowledge that there was potentially coccaine in them

Martin ratio

Wilful blindness is enough to constitute knowledge

Recklessness defining it

• not defined in statue

• it is taking unjustified or unreasonable risks

• the degree of the risk you must see is unclear however it is lower then oblique intention

• often words are used are likely or probabale so these must mean real substatial

Test for recklessness

• Subjective test

• Prosecution must prove that the defendant conciously took the risk “cunnigham recklessness” - choosing to run a risk and there by putting themselves above others

• risk must be on unjustifiable or unreasonable, contrast to a risk that is socially justified e.g surgeon