This articles has been written by Ms. Khyati Kanoje, a student studying B.A.LL.B (H.) from Narsee Monjee Institute of Management, NMIMS, Indore. The author is a 3rd year law student.
In most jurisdictions, criminal responsibility hinges on whether or not the defendant acted with the requisite “mens rea at the time of the commission of the crime.” This indicates that a criminal conviction requires not only the commission of a criminal act (actus reus) but also the presence of a criminal intent (mens rea) at the moment of the conduct.
That is to say, the offender must have either been willfully or recklessly or negligently involved in the conduct that resulted in the harm. The conduct must be done knowingly and knowingly connected to the harm done.
Let’s say one individual uses a baseball bat to strike another. The act of swinging the bat at the victim is the actus reus, whereas the mens rea is the specific intent to injure or the degree of carelessness or negligence involved. If the bat was swung with malice in mind, the offender can be held criminally accountable for assault or battery because the requisite actus reus and mens rea elements have been met.
The opposite is true if the person is playing a game and inadvertently hits another player with the bat; in this case, there is no coincidence between the actus reus and the mens rea, and the player cannot be held criminally accountable.
In conclusion, both the criminal act and the criminal intent, or “actus reus” and “mens rea,” must have occurred simultaneously for a person to be found guilty of a crime.
This element refers to the requirement that the mental state of the defendant (mens rea) and the physical act (actus reus) must occur at the same time. In other words, the defendant must have had the intent to commit the crime at the time they actually committed the act.
For example, let’s say someone throws a rock off a bridge and it lands on a car below, causing damage. If the person didn’t intend to cause harm, but was just throwing the rock for fun, then they wouldn’t be guilty of a crime because the mental state (lack of intent) doesn’t match up with the act (throwing the rock). However, if the person intentionally threw the rock with the intent to cause harm, then they would be guilty of a crime because the mental state (intent) and act (throwing the rock) occurred at the same time.
In English law, the actus reus and mens rea must be consistent with one another. The two events cannot occur at different times. Contemporaneity rule, or the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea, describes this situation.
In the case of Edwards v. Ddin [(1976) 63 Cr App R 218] the defendant filled up his petrol tank at a petrol station. After that, he requested that the attendant fill the car with oil and water. The defendant drove off without paying as the attendant washed his hands. It was decided that he did not commit theft because, under contract law, the petrol belonged to the defendant once it was placed in his petrol tank. The petrol was already his at the moment he decided not to pay for it.
Additionally, the courts frequently use a flexible approach in concluding that the actus reus is an ongoing event.
Another case is of Thabo Meli V. R [1954 1 WLR 228]
All four of the appellants had murder convictions upheld. A man was going to be killed, and everything would be made to look like an accident. They dragged him to a shack and clubbed him on the head with a hammer. After they were convinced he was dead, they dragged his body to the bottom of a cliff and hurled it off. However, autopsy results later revealed that the man had actually died of exposure to the elements after being deposited there. They filed an appeal arguing that there was insufficient evidence connecting them to the crimes they were convicted of. That is to say, there was no actus reus at the time they conceived of the plan to kill because the man was still alive. There was no mens rea when they hurled him over the cliff since they did not aim to kill someone, they believed to be dead. Convictions were upheld as valid. It was one continuous motion to “eat him and throw him”.
According to Lord Reid,
“It appears to their Lordships impossible to divide up what was really one transaction in this way. There is no doubt that the accused set out to do all these acts in order to achieve their plan and a part of their plan; and it is much too refined a ground of judgement to say that, because they were under a misapprehension at one stage and thought that their guilty purpose and been achieved before in fact it was achieved, therefore they are to escape the penalties of the law”
In the case of Fagan V. MPC [(1969) 1 Q.B. 439] the suspect was being directed to a parking spot by a police officer. The defendant ran over the police officer’s foot by accident. The police officer ordered him to assemble. The defendant insisted on staying put. The defendant claims that he was not acting intentionally when he drove over the victim’s foot, arguing that the incident was an accident. The mens rea he developed was not accompanied by the actus reus since he took no action. It has been determined that the act of driving onto the foot and remaining there was a continuation act.
In the case of R. V. Hale [(1978) 68 Cr App 415] two of the accused burglars broke into a woman’s house and ascended to her bedroom and retrieved some jewelry. They took the jewelry and then tied her up and left. The defendants appealed their robbery conviction on the grounds that the force used against them occurred after they had stolen the jewelry rather than just before or during the theft. The guilt was sustained and held that the theft of the jewelry was an ongoing crime.
According to Eveleigh LJ:
“It goes against common sense and the natural meaning of the language to declare the behavior is finished and done with the moment he put hands on the property. Appropriation is an ongoing process. Appropriation is an ongoing process, and it is up to the Jury to determine when it is complete.”
In conclusion, the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea is a crucial element in criminal law that helps to ensure fairness and justice in the criminal justice system. While it’s not always easy to determine whether this coincidence exists, it’s an essential component of criminal liability that must be considered in all criminal cases. The coincidence of actus reus and mens rea is a fundamental principle in criminal law. It refers to the requirement that for a person to be convicted of a crime, the actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind) must coincide. That is to say, the offender must have either been willfully or recklessly or negligently involved in the conduct that resulted in the harm.
This principle is fundamental because it protects people from criminal prosecution for actions that were unintentional or accidental. As a result, people are less likely to be unfairly punished for actions that were out of their hands or that they did not knowingly do.
Though it may seem obvious, actus reus and mens rea need not necessarily coincide for criminal liability. Whether or not a person possessed the necessary purpose or mental state at the time of the act is not always easy to ascertain. For instance, determining whether a person acted in self-defense or with the intention to hurt another can be difficult in self-defense instances.
REFERENCES:
- https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/queen-mary-university-of-london/criminal-law-level-5/coincidence-of-actus-reus-and-mens-rea/3580892
- https://www.academia.edu/30454885/COINCIDENCE_OF_ACTUS_REUS_AND_MENS_REA
- Edwards v Ddin (1976) 63 Cr App R 218.
- Thabo Meli v. R (1954) 1 WLR 228.
- Fagan v. MPC (1969) 1 Q.B. 439.
- R v. Hale (1978) 68 Cr App R 415.