2024.04.22_Criminal_Law_Lecture_Part_1__28Versari_Doctrine_29_Audio_Only

Overview of Criminal Liability Elements

• To prosecute or find an accused guilty of a crime, the state must prove both actus reus and mens rea.

  • Actus Reus: Refers to the physical act of committing a crime.

  • Mens Rea: Refers to the mental state or intent behind committing the crime.

• Key elements covered so far include:

  • Conduct (commissions and omissions)

  • Voluntariness

  • Causation

Upcoming Topics in Criminal Liability

• In the second semester, the topic of unlawfulness will be explored further.

• Mens rea elements of crime:

  • Capacity has been addressed tangentially (e.g., intoxication and youth).

• Focus in current lectures will shift to fault as the next element of criminal liability.

Fault in Criminal Law

• Fault is a mens rea element and can be expressed as:

  • Intention (Dolis)

    • Legal intention to commit the crime.

  • Negligence (KALPA)

    • Failing to act as a reasonable person would, creating a potential for harm.

Distinctions between Fault Types

• Common law crimes predominantly require intention as the requisite mens rea, with exceptions:

  • Culpable homicide predominantly requires negligence.

• Statutory offenses indicate whether intention or negligence is necessary.

• Strict Liability Crimes: Fault isn't a requirement, allowing for conviction even without intent or negligence (e.g., speeding).

Two Foundational Principles Behind Fault

1. Fault must extend to every element of the crime:

   • Example: In homicide, the accused must intend to act unlawfully, intend to kill (as opposed to injure), and intend to kill a human being (not an animal).

2. Mens rea must be contemporaneous with actus reus:

   • Fault is tested at the moment of the unlawful act, not based on prior intentions.

   • Example: If an accused plans to kill but acts negligently during the act (causing harm), they can only be held liable for negligence

Case Example: R versus Churchill (Abduction)

• Definition of abduction: Unlawfully taking an unmarried girl under 21 from her guardian against their will for sexual intercourse.

• Acused claimed not to have realized the girl was under 21, impacting mens rea.

• Conviction was overturned because intent did not extend to all elements of the crime.

Implications of the Two Principles on Fault

• This relates back to mens rea:

  • Each aspect of the crime definition must have corresponding intention.

  • For culpable homicide, there's a necessity for a reasonable person standard in negligence.

Negligence versus Intention

• Negligence (Objective Test): Did a reasonable person foresee the harm?

• Intention (Subjective Test): Did the accused subjectively foresee and act reckless regarding the possibility of harm?

Introduction to the VERSARI Doctrine

• The VERSARI doctrine (no longer applicable) suggested that intention for one crime (e.g., felonies) could be imputed to any subsequent crimes resulting from that initial intention.

• Critique: It violates the principle of contemporaneousness. If harm or subsequent actions were unforeseen and unintentional, the accused should not be liable.

Historical Cases Illustration of VERSARI

1. Wallendorf: Ignorance of a police officer's status led to wrongful conviction via VERSARI.

2. Matseppe: Negligent driving led to injury, but prior intentions (driving negligently) wrongly led to liability for subsequent unintended consequences.

Abolition of VERSARI Doctrine

• Major decisions against VERSARI include Van de Meste (1962) and Bernadis (1965), reinforcing the necessity that mens rea be contemporaneous with the actus reus.

• Bernadis Case: An accused could not be liable for culpable homicide simply based on intent to harm when the actual foreseen consequences (death) were not reasonable to expect.

Conclusion

• Study of fault's foundational principles is essential, and understanding its implications for liability remains critical for analyzing criminal cases.

• The lecture series on fault will detail aspects such as dolus eventualis and the standards of a reasonable person in negligence.