Actus Reus, Causation, Mens Rea
Actus Reus, Causation, Mens Rea
Actus Reus, Causation, Mens Rea
GUILTY ACT
In order to proof that the defendant had committed a crime the prosecution has to proof the
elements of the offence beyond reasonable therefore the legal burden is on the prosecution to
proof that the defendant had committed the crime. It is therefore not for the defendant to proof his
innocence. Therefore the prosecution has to proof the actus reus of the defendant and also the
requisite mens rea of the defendant. This is a fundamental principle which has been long
established. This principle was established in the English famous case. In Woolmington v DPP [1935]
. The principle established in woolmington is recognised in msia. Once the defendant has been
charged, the defence counsel will have to proof that the defendant did not commit the crime or the
defence counsel will raise defences. When the burden is on the defence counsel they have a lower
standard to satisfy. The standard that is required which is lower that the standard imposed on the
prosecution. This standard is called as balance of probabilities.
For the prosecution to find defendant guilty, the prosecution has to proof the following:
1. the defendant had commited the wrongful act or the actus reus. For exam purposes the verbs, the
stabbing would indicate what the actus reus was, eg if rape sexual assault, theft the property. 2. The
prosecution must also proof it was the defendant wrongful act that caused the harm suffered by the
victim. 3. The prosecution has to proof the guilty mind of the commited wrongful act. 4. the
defendant defence should not be available to the defendant (has to be beyond reasonable doubt)
The wrongful act or the actus reus can be smtg that the defendant did (positive act) or it could be
smtg that the defendant fail to do which is an omission. The actus reus that the defendant had
carried our for instance stabbing or shooting, in some instances however could be a failure to act on
the defences part. S33 clearly states that the actus reus could be one wrongful act, a series of
wrongful act. The section also states that the actus reus could be one omission or a series of
omission. S300(a). To proof that the defendant has carried out the wrongful act, the prosecution has
to proof. Students have to refer to the facts and focus on the verbs to infer the wrongful act of the
defendant. If the fact show that the defendant had carried out the wrongful act established that the
actus reus was smtg that the defendant had done but if the fact show that the defendant had fail to
act the the actus reus is considered as an omission. Section 43 that certain omission can make the
defendnat liable. Section 33 prima facie recognizes omission as actus reus and S43 states that
omission attracts criminal liability if that person is legally bound to act and has fail to do so and
therefore his failure to act will make him criminally liable, hence his failure to act will the actus reus
for the offense.
As a general rule, English law (msian law) does not make the defendant liable unless the defendant
owed a duty of care by failing to act he had breached that duty of care therefore his omission will
become illegal.
Section 43 recognizes the principle set under english law where failure to act or omission will make
the defendant liable only if the defendant owed a duty of care
Omission will make the defendant liable only if he owes a duty of care. Msian law imposes these
duty under statutes. For instance the police act imposes statutory duty on police officers and if they
fail to act their omission may amount to the actus reus of a crime. Common law also has recognised
many instances where duty of care has been established and the defendant failure to act make them
liable
R v Pitwood - The defendant had a contractual duty to open and close te railway gate. He fail to do
so and a victim died as a result of his failure to close the railway gate therefore his failure to act was
the actus reus of the offence.
R V Gibbins & Proctor - English law has imposed the duty to act because of existing relationship. It
was clearly established that duty of care will exist because of relationships. And based on that
principle both the defendant in this case were held liable for the death of the child . R V Stone and
Dobinson - The courts clearly stated that the duty of care will be imposed if the defendant assumes
responsibility to care (agreed to take care). In both these cases the defendant agreed to care for the
victims agreed to care the victims and both this cases they fail o do so. Hence their failure to act was
the actus reus of the harm cause (in this case twas the death)
R V Miller - In miller the courts stated that when a defendant created the dangerous situation duty
to act therefore the defendant in this case fail to take any reasonable measure or to reduce the
danger that he had cause and therefore his failure to act was said to be omission
It must also be proven that the actus reus ( whether it a positive act or a failure to act) was done
voluntarily
It must be proven that the actus reus was done voluntarily
One the prosecution show that the defendant has done voluntarily the prosectuion must further
proof that it was the defendant act that cause the victim death (chapter 5)
If the defendant act of shooting immediately killed the victim then the prosectuion can show that it
was the shooting that caused the death however if they were other acts or events that took place
then it would be more difficult for the prosecution to proof that it was the act of the defendant that
caused the death - R V smith
In R v Smith - If there are intertwining acts that took place after the defendant had carried out the
wrong act the it would be more difficult or the prosecution to show that it was the act of defendant
that caused the death of the victim
Facts - in this case, the defendnat stabbed the victim who was then rushed to the hospital. He was
carried in a stretcher and he was dropped twice before reaching twice bfr reaching the hospital and
while he was being treated in the hospital it was the notice that he received improper treatment.
Based on this case the defence argued that there were two intertwining acts, which were the
dropping of the victim and the improper treatment received by the victim.
Question - The court was to decide if the defendants stab wound was the cause of the victims death.
In situation such as this the defendant can only be held liable for the death if the victim if the
prosectuion can proof beyond reasonable doubt that it was the stab wound that cause the death
and nt the other intertwining acts.
The burden is in the prosecution to proof that ort was the act d that cause the death of victim. In
some instances, this would be clear. However in many instances this would seem unclear because
there could have been another act that may have contributed to the death of the victime. In
R v White [1910] the d who was the victim son gave the victim some poison, however the victim
died later not because of the poisoning but because of heart attack. In R v Smith, the defendant
stabbed the victim, after that he was carried to the hospital in a stretcher. The victim was dropped
twice and when he reach the hospital he was given improper treatment. Therefore, in case such as r
v smith and r v white, it would be difficult for the prosecution to proof it was the defendant wrongful
act that cause the death of the victim. In instances such as this, the concept of causation become
very relevant.
Textbook: Cases
R v Blaue [1975] - the defendnat stabbed the vicitm and was taken to the hospital and she needed
blood transfusion. However the parents refused the treatment. Eventually then victim died.
In these cases , the defendant can only be found guilty for the death if the prosecution can proof
that the chain of causation is nt broken. If the chain is nt broken it can proven that it was the act of
the defendant that cause the death of the vicitm.
Nga Moe v The King AIR 194 Rangoon 141, in this case, the defendant caused minor head injuries to
the vicitm. The injuries healed within a weak while the vicitm was in hospital. However, the vicitm
had fever and was told to stay in the hospital until he gt well. The vicitm refused to stay in the
hospital and gt himself discharged against medical advise. One week later however the vicitm died.
Again the question of causation was imp. The defence argued that the chain of causation was
broken.
In R v Roberts 1971, the victim and defendant were in the car. The defendant made sexual advances
towards the victim and this cause the vicitm of the movie and eventually the vicitm died. So again
causation had to be discussed.
All this cases indicates, that it was nt only defendants act to contribute the victim deaths. In such
cases, the concept of causation becomes very important. 2 important element has to be proven by
the prosecution.
1. The defendant can only be liable for death if the prosecution can proof if the chain of
causation is nt broken. If the chain is nt broken then the defendnat can be held for the death
of vicitm. How if the chain is broken therefore cannot be held liable for the death but he
would be convicted for caused other offences. In deciding the chain is broken or nt, courts
have rely on several test. In all cases where causation is at issue, the judges had to look at
the evidence and decide whether the chain is or is nt broken. For exam purpose students
need to understand the application of two test so that they will be able to determine
whether the chain is or is not broken.
i) the substantial cause test - has been used in several cases. Was applied in the case of r v
smith and the courts decided that the chain was nt broken because the courts held that the
substantial and the operative cause of death was the infliction of the wound which was caused
by the defendant. Therefore in r v smith the courts held that the chain of causation was nt
broken. The same test had applied in other cases as well.
In the Singaporean case, Shaiful Edham bin Adam v PP [1999] stabbed the victim and threw
him into the drain thinking the victim had died but evident showed that the vicitm died
because it was thrown into the drain. The defence argued that the chain of causation was
broken. The courts applied the test, used in r v smith and held that the chain is nt broken
because it was the act of the defendant that was the substantial and operative cause of
death.
In r v white, where the defendant give poison to his mother, the issue of causation became
relevant. In this case, the courts held, the chain was broken and therefore, the defendant
could not be held for the death of vicitm since the defendant broke the chain of causation.
He was charged with a serious offence which was attempting to cause murder.
ii) The second test that has alos been used in some case is called as foreseeability test
Courts have also recognised or applied another test. In Yohahan v state. If the courts are
going to use the f test then the prosecution will have to infer what defendant could foresee
because carried out the wrongful act. In this case the defendant stabbed his wife with a pen
knife which injured her spinal cord and she became paralyzed and she died 7 months after
the infliction of the wound. In the case, the courts used the f test to decide whether the
chain of causation is broken or nt. In deciding whether the chain was broken or not the
courts has to decide or infer what the defendant could foresee before he inflicted the injury.
In this case, the courts used he foreseeability test, and decided that the chain is broken
which means the defendant was not held liable for the death of the victime but for crossing
injury to her. The court infer the chain was broken because they were convinced that the
defendant could not reasonably foresee that his act of stabbing her with a pen knife on her
back could lead to her death. Therefore based on this reasoning the courts held that the
chain of causation was broken.
For exam purposes, when they are intertwining act, two test can be applied the substantial cause
test and the foreseeability test. This two test are used to determine the same thing that is whether
the chain is or is nt broken. If the substantial and the operative cause test is used then the courts will
decide based on what were the substantial main or operative cause were. If the foreseeability test is
used then the courts will decide based on what did the defendnat foresee before he carried out the
wrongful act
S.299 of PC - explanation 1 deals with causation and it recognises egg shell skull rule. Explanation 1
clearly says that the chain cannot be broken if the defendnat argues that it was the victim's illness or
disease or disabilities that caused the victim's death & therefore if the defendant cause injury to a
vicitm, explanation 1 to section 299 of PC clearly states that the defendant must accept the vicitm as
he finds him
Explanation 1- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder,
disease, or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have
caused his death. (if the defendant causing injury to the person WHO ALREADY HAS SOME KIND OF
INJURY, then he'll be held for the death of the victim - cannot blame the victim disorder to break the
chain)
In the case of r v Blaue [1975] had to accept the victim's refusal to receive the medical treatment
and therefore could nt argue that the victim religious believe broke the chain of causation. The
principle of r v blaue is recognised under explanation 1.
In Malaysia the principle established in R V Smith have often been applied. In Leong Slong Sun &
Anor V PP, the defendant argued that the intervening acts broke the chain of broken. The defendant
argues that the repte of the intensity and the negligence that took place after that broke the chain of
causation.
In this case - loh yoon fatt v case 2014, the defendnat had injured the vicitm and the victim was in
the hospital, the vicitm received treatment and eventually the vicitm died. Again argued that it was
the interwining act which took place in the hospital that cause the death and therefore the chain of
causation is broken. The court again refuse to accept this reasoning and used the test recognise din r
v smith and said that the chain is nt broken the substantial and the operative cause of death was the
act of the defendant.
GULITY MIND
The prosecution must proof the following:
1. The defendnat commited the actus reus
2. It was the defendnat act that caused the harm if they are interwining act the it is for the
courts to use
3. The prosectuion must also proof the mens rea of the defendant. In simple language refers to
the fault element.
The prosectuion must proof the mens rea or the fault element of the defendant beyond reasonable
doubt. The penal code under the 511 sections identifies several types of mens rea and fault
elements.
The highest level of fault element is intention. The second level would be knowledge. The penal code
does not provide definitions or statutory meanings to this words. Therefore, to understand the
meaning of intention or knowledge, reference to case law is needed.
4 types of fault elements need to be understood for offence under part 1.
The highest fault element would be intention (S 300a) - defines the meaning of murder and it
identifies only intention as the mens rea or fault element.
If 300a does not have element to proof a then they have to reply on 300 b. Under 300b there are 2
are fault element.
1. Intention to cause bodily injury
2. and knowledge that this is likely to cause death
300c identifies intention as the mens rea. 300d only recognises knowledge as the mens rea.
Therefore, to proof murder the prosecution must have enough of evidence to proof either intention
or knowledge as the requisite fault element.
Under S. 304a, 2 other fault elements have been identified as the requisite mens rea for causing
death under 304a. S304a identifies rashness or negligence as the requisite mens rea.
To proof murder or culpable homicide , 2 fault element relevant.
1. Intention OR knowledge
2. Intention AND knowledge
If the prosecution charge defendant under 304A then the prosectuion must proof that the
defendant had acted negligently or rashly.
Since the penal code does nt provide statutory definition which define meaning of these fault
element, therefore case law has to be understood well so that the meaning of fault element can
clearly be understood.
These are some of the cases that has explain the meaning for these fault elements.
Intention - Bhagwant Appji v Kedari Kashinath
Knowledge - Jai Prakash v State
The meaning of intention has been identified in numerous cases. In the case of Bhagwant Appaji v
Kedari Kashinath, the meaning of intention was discussed and it was summarise as following.
Intention in this case is where the defendant does and act to achieve a particular end. Therefore,
according to Bhagwant Appaji the defendant is said to have the intention if the purpose of doing
that act brings about a particular end that he had desired.
The second fault element is knowledge. Jai Prakash v state, in this case the courts discussed the
difference between intention and knowledge and] It was also decided that knowledge is the lower
fault element. And in this case knowledge was said to be a state of mental realisation where the
defendant was conscious and aware of certain facts.
Rashness - Re Nidamarti Nagabhushanam
Negligence - Empress v Idu Beg
Rashness said to be higher fault element than negligence. In Re Nidamarti Nagabhushanam
rashness identifies as follows. The defendant is conscious that a mischievous or ill consequences
may follow. (the defendant was conscious that harm may take place but he hopes that this harm will
not happen and he believes he has taken sufficient precaution)
In Empress v Idu Beg, the meaning of negligence was discussed. Negligence is said to be the neglect
or failure to exercise reasonable care and precaution so that harm against another could have been
prevented.
One way of distinguishing rashness from negligence would be to look into the facts. If the fact shows
that the defendant was aware that harm may result from his act or omissions and he still went on
with his wrongful act. Then according to Re Nidamarti, he is said to be acted rashly. The defendnat is
aid to acted negligently if the defendant did not take reasonable precautions and he may not have
been conscious or aware that har may follow from his acts.
The general rules is the mens rea must be present when the defendant was doing the wrongful act.
Therefore there must a coincidence and mens reas
In Fowler v Padget 1789, Lord Kenyon clearly made the following points before a conviction is
possible.
1. The defendnat must have commited the actus reus
2. The defendant must also have the requisite mens rea
3. The actus reus and the mens rea must have co-incided. (there must have been coincidence
of actus reus and mens rea) - this means when the defendnat carried out wrongful act he
must had the requisite mens rea.
Therefore, according to the doctrine of tranffred malice, the defendnat will be liable if he had the
mens rea to cause a particular kind of harm and his death cause particular harm through and
unintended vicitm.
Section 301 recognises the doctrine of tranffred malice. Therefore, the defendnats cannot escape
liability if they argue that the harm caused was to an unintended person. However, this doctrine
cannot apply in cases such as R v Pembliton [1874-1880]-exception, because in this case the
defendant had the mens rea to cause one particular harm but his act cause damage to properties. In
pembliton, this doctrine was nt applicable because his mens rea was nt to cause to a person and his
act had caused damage to property. Therefore, the doctrine of tranffred malice could nt be
applicable and therefore he could not be liable for causing injury.