The Actus Reus is the actual or physical component of the offence, and the accompanied state of mind is called the Mens rea.
It is the fundamental duty of the prosecution to prove elements of the offence to the satisfaction of the court beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof, the accused is acquitted.
Actus Reus refers to the natural/physical ingredients of an offence. It involves the conduct of the accused, its results, and those surrounding circumstances and consequences or the state of affairs.
It also means A person cannot be guilty of an offence unless they have done an act forbidden by law.
In other words, no person can be punished for mere wishes, jealousy, hatred, or lust.
For that person to be charged, they must take a positive step to do the forbidden act.
Therefore, Actus Reus is conducting, sometimes, consequences, circumstances, and state of affairs. E.g. Actus Reus entails;
- Conduct ( Act)
- Consequence
- Circumstance
For instance, In murder, 'A' points a gun at 'B' to kill and pulls the trigger (conduct) that results in 'B's death (consequence)
In rape, Penetration of 'B's vagina or and is the (conduct) and 'X' must not have consented (circumstance)
Actus Reus may also mean failure to take action where action may be required under the law. E.g., failure to report treason cases, and failure to provide necessities to children.
Bennet J dismissed the appeal and held that;
1. The ordinance imposes an absolute prohibition against the carrying of excess passengers or goods, and there was no obligation for the prosecution to prove mens rea.
2. The prosecution had to prove that the omnibus carried more passengers than it was licensed to carry and that the appellant company was the owner of the omnibus.
The appellant did not pay until one and a half months when he paid 10,502/= drawn from Churcher's account. Heath made a demand note for the unpaid interest.
The appellant was charged and convicted of stealing by an agent.
Out of the cases, the court discussed several issues;
- It observed that what constitutes a crime is the Actus Reus and Mens rea. Quoting from Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law 16th Edition at P. 32
'In law, an Actus reus is always required, although, in ethics, a guilty mind alone may be held sufficient to constitute guilt."
- Court further observed that if a statute renders an act illegal, innocent in itself, provided it is done with a specific intention. The act done with that intention becomes the Actus reus and is no longer innocent.
- Many acts of conversion, rendered criminal by fraudulent intent, would in its absence be innocent acts. Thus retention by an agent of a more significant sum than was actually due to him from money held on behalf of his principal is innocent if brought about by a genuine error in accounts–but is criminal if done with fraudulent intent.
Windham JA held:
The appellant's physical act in paying the cheque into his office account could not be divorced from his intention to decide whether the payment was a fraudulent conversion.
His act consisted of what he did with the cheque coupled with his intention when he did it.
So, if at that moment he intended to "use it at his will" for the purpose, that is to say, if he paid it into his office account with the intention of not paying Heath an equivalent sum within at most two days, but of reducing his overdraft.
Even though he may have intended at some later day to pay heath, then his act was not authorized, and he was guilty of fraudulent conversion of the cheque.
Note: From the above case. We observe that;
- The statute may create Actus Reus. For example, statutes that create a duty on a particular individual. The statute's provisions must be clearly defined, and if an individual fails to comply, he commits an offence.
- From Hawkins's case, we also observe that there may be situations where the result of the conduct is not what the person intended to do. The issue is whether they are liable. e.g., if the intended aim is harmless but stands out to be harmful, the expected result, which is harmful, does not make him liable.
- Suppose the intended aim is harmful but not unlawful. E.g., games (boxing).
- However, the person may be liable for the Actus Reus for a particular offence; then, you achieve it for another offence. If one intends to steal and ends up killing the person, they went to steal.
Voluntary Act
Another point to note is that the Actus Reus must be voluntary for anybody to be liable.
In the case of Bratty v Attorney-General of Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386, Lord Denning said: 'The requirement that [the act of the accused] should be a voluntary act is essential . . . in every criminal case.
The conduct is due to automatism or acting by reflex action, or where it is forced by someone else, it cannot be termed as Actus Reus.
Automatism
Automatism manifests when an individual performs an action but cannot recognize or know what they are doing and occurs due to some external factor.
Reflex actions
Sometimes people can respond to something with a spontaneous reflex action over which they have no control. Despite being narrowly distinct, it is sometimes placed as some form of automatism.
Physical force
The conduct may be involuntary because it is physically forced by someone else, in which case there will be no Actus Reus.
A case in point to illustrate the concepts is Leicester v Pearson [1952] 2 All ER 71.
The respondent, while driving his car, knocked down a pedestrian at a zebra crossing.
The respondent was charged with failure in his duty to give precedence over the pedestrian on a zebra crossing contrary to the regulations.
The trial magistrate acquitted him of the charges and found that he was not negligent. The police appealed against the decision.
At the trial, the presented evidence showed that;
- The lighting around the crossing was poor.
- It was raining, and the surface was wet and in poor condition.
- The eastern side was flanked by trees causing shadows, and the pedestrian was crossing from the dark side.
- The respondent was driving at a reasonable and proper speed in the circumstances and did not see the pedestrian.
The Judgment of Hilbery J emphasized that what happened was inevitable or was due to some circumstance over which the driver had no reasonable or possible control. Appeal dismissed.
OMISSION
The general principle for liability is based on actions unless, at the moment of the failure to act, one was under a duty to act.
An omission is where a person can be held criminally responsible for a failure to act.
The following are the situations in which one can be held liable for failure to act;
Where a duty to care arises;
i.e., In the Case of Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134, G and his current wife had several children. Nelly, a child of a previous wife to G, never cared for the child. They kept Nelly separate from the other children and deliberately starved her to death. G and P were convicted of murder and G owed Nelly a duty as her father; P was held to have undertaken a duty.
Thus the parents are under a duty to care for their children.
Where one assumes a duty to care
i.e., In the case of Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354
Under contractual obligations
I.e., In the Case of Pittwood, D was a signalman employed by a railway company. His duty was to monitor level crossing and ensure the closure of the gate when trains were due. On D leaving the gate open away from his post, someone crossing the line was hit and killed. D was convicted of manslaughter. He was under a contractual duty to act.
Where one creates a dangerous situation
The appellant fell asleep and woke up to find the mattress on fire. He just got up and went into the next room to get back to sleep.
Later on, the police and fire people arrived. He did not get anything to put the fire out.
The prosecution asserted that he was reckless after he got up and learned about the existence of the fire, but he did not make any attempt to put it out. He was convicted of arson.
The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling treating the whole course of conduct described as a series of acts /continuous acts, with Mens rea existing at some point during that act.
The court preferred to analyze the situation in terms of 'duty and 'responsibility rather than 'continuous act.' According to Lord dip lock,
"I cannot see any good reason why, so far as liability under criminal law is concerned, it should matter at what point of time before the resultant damage is complete a person becomes aware that he has done a physical activity which, whether or not he appreciated that it would at the time when he did it, does create a risk that property of another will be damaged, provided that, at the moment of awareness, it lies within his power to take steps, either himself or by calling for the assistance of the fire brigade, if this be necessary, to prevent or minimize the damage to the property at risk. . . .'
The fundamental principle is that when a person recognizes and becomes aware that they have created a dangerous situation unless they take reasonable steps to control the effects of the situation, they are held criminally culpable.
The defendant had created a dangerous situation which gave rise to a duty to act. therefore, the Actus Reus was satisfied by the defendant's failure to deal with the fire, and this coincided with the relevant men's rea; thus, he was liable.