Návrat na detail prednášky / Stiahnuť prednášku / Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika / Právnická Fakulta / Legal English

vypracovaná otázka (19kový) č. 4 (q_4.doc)

4)

1. Constitution of GB – characteristics, sources

2. Elements to a crime

In many legal systems there is an important principle that a person cannot be considered guilty of a crime until the state proves s/he will of course help herself/himself if s/he can show evidence of the innocence. The state must prove the guilt according to high standards and for each crime there are precise elements, which must be proven. There are usually two important elements to a crime:

1. actus reus – the criminal act itself
2. mens rea – the criminal state of mind

Actus reus of an offence means the unlawful act, but the term incorporates other factors. It is more then a physical act for it also includes an omission of an act. In some cases doing nothing at all (i.e. an omission) may form the actus reus where the defendant is under a duty to act. The duty to act may be imposed by common law, by statute or under contract. In the 1918 case of R. v. Gibbons and Proctor a child starved to death because his father did not feed his so the defendant was in breach of his common law duty to care for his child and his actions by failing to feed amounted to the actus reus of manslaughter.

Conduct and result are mot the only features of significance. The circumstances in which the conduct or result take place may be of equal importance. In rape, for example, the circumstance that the woman did not consent is a necessary part of both the actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus of an offence may include: the conduct, the circumstances and the consequences.

There is a different definition of mens rea for each crime. It is either defined in the statute creating the crime or established by precedent. Common examples of mens rea are intention to bring about a particular consequence, recklessness as to whether such consequence may come about and negligence. Sometimes the defendant need not have intended to kill but just to have wounded someone seriously. He need not even have had a direct intention: in some cases a defendant has been found guilty if s/he killed someone because of recklessness – not caring about the dangers. Several recent cases have considered the problem of whether recklessness means acting even though you know there is a high risk of danger or acting without thinking about risks which a reasonable person ought to consider. In other crimes it is enough to have been negligent or careless without any clear intention or even recklessness.

The differences between these elements can be explained by using the crime of murder as an example. In English law there is a rather long common law definition of murder: it is an unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought, so that the victim dies within a year and a day. Malice aforethought refers to the mens rea of the crime.

In general, if the prosecution fails to prove either actus or mens, the court must decide there was no crime and the case is over.