ABSTRACT
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea
An act does not make anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent or a guilty mind. In other words we can say that for any act to be illegal in nature it must be done with a guilty mind. Thus to convict the defendant, it must be proved that the criminal act was carried out with a criminal intend.
A crime is a moral wrong that is done to the entire society. It disrupts the tranquilly, and certain crimes may result in widespread fear and the cessation of routine communal activities (Example: – the shooting in Orlando, Florida). The State bears the burden of proving a crime, whereas the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The State takes action to protect the victims of the crime, to stop the criminal from committing more crimes, and to provide the victims justice. In an effort to lead criminals in the direction of becoming law-abiding, responsible citizens, the State also takes steps to penalise the offender, and the majority of nations have reformation programmes in jail. Since an animal cannot conduct a crime, a human must do so in order for it to be considered a criminal. Animal abuse, however, is a crime that is sanctioned by the law. In most common law nations, the two fundamental elements of any crime are mens rea and Actus Reus. Mens rea is the legal term for the “guilty mind” or guilty desire to conduct a crime, with the express purpose of causing harm to a person or an animal, or to disturb the peace. However, Actus Reus is the “guilty act,” which is required to show that a criminal conduct was performed. There are specific rules that must be observed while dealing with crimes, and the accused is given the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution to establish the defendant’s guilt.
Mens Rea
Mens rea is crucial in determining whether or not an act is criminally responsible. Mens rea shows that the accused had a definite intention to commit the offence for which he is being prosecuted. The accused must be shown to have done the offence with full awareness of what they were doing and with malice toward the victim in mind. Mens rea, which requires the defendant to have been aware of the consequences of their conduct for a civil responsibility to exist, is also employed in some civil lawsuits, although often, the Actus Reus takes precedence in cases of civil liability. Additionally, whether an Act was voluntary or not depends on the specific facts of the case. Even though the act of driving while intoxicated was accidental, the individual is nonetheless guilty of the offence if he chooses to drink before doing so and unintentionally harms others. However, if an otherwise healthy individual has a heart attack and unintentionally hurts someone else while driving, he is not responsible and is not guilty of the crime.
Actus Reus
The physical component of a crime is called Actus Reus. In civil proceedings, the plaintiff or victim must have suffered harm as a result of the accused’s actions or inactions. There can be no crime and no cause of action for damages without a criminal conduct. However, an act by itself does not constitute a crime; rather, the crime is made up of the act itself and the person’s purpose, if the conduct is unlawful. When determining guilt or demonstrating a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s intentions, the facts of the case are often also taken into account. (For instance, bringing a knife into someone’s home with the aim to kill them, or accidently hitting someone crossing the street carelessly while driving at night in the fog.). Actus Reus can also refer to the failure to do an act when the accused knows he is required to do so by duty or law (for instance, when a mother purposefully fails to feed her female child, which results in the infant’s death). If the mother’s purpose to kill her child can be demonstrated in court, she can be prosecuted with murder in addition to causing death by carelessness.
Judicial Interpretation In some Cases:
The House of Lords had to assess the crime of “being interested in the administration of any premises used for” smoking cannabis, in violation of section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1965, in the well-known mens rea case Sweet v. Parsley [1970] AC 132. Despite not being aware that her property was being utilised in this manner, the defendant was found guilty. Her appeal was successful. According to the headnote,
“Mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence unless some reason can be found for holding that it is not necessary, and the court ought not to hold that an offence is an absolute offence unless it appears that that must have been the intention of Parliament.”
In his ruling, Lord Diplock quotes with agreement Stephen J’s interpretation from the earlier case of R v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168, 187, who was sitting in the Court of Crown Cases Reserved.
“The full definition of every crime contains expressly or by implication a proposition as to a state of mind. Therefore, if the mental element of any conduct alleged to be a crime is proved to have been absent in any given case, the crime so defined is not committed; or, again, if a crime if fully defined, nothing amounts to that crime which does not satisfy that definition.”
At page 163, Lord Diplock continues, “Tolson’s case:“laid down as a general principle of construction of any enactment, which creates a criminal offence, that, even where the words used to describe the prohibited conduct would not in any other context connote the necessity for any particular mental element, they are nevertheless to be read as subject to the implication that a necessary element in the offence is the absence of a belief, held honestly and upon reasonable grounds, in the existence of facts which, if true, would make the act innocent.”
This article is written by KAMAL, Faculty of Law, University of DELHI, LL.B-3rd year during his internship at LeDroit India.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN LEDROIT‘S WHATSAPP GROUP
