ST.

JOHN'S UNIVERSITY OF TANZANIA

CRIMINAL LAW

PREPARED BY DATIUCE DIDACE

Mobile; ±255 685 563 704

E-mail: datiuced115@gmail.com
PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

INTRODUCTION:

The general Basis for imposing liability in criminal law is that the defendant must be proved to have
committed a guilty act whilst having had a guilty state of mind. The physical elements are collectively
called the actus REUS and the accompanied mental state is called the men's rea

It is the fundamental duty of the persecution to prove both of these elements of the offence to the
satisfaction of judge beyond reasonable doubt.

ACTUS REUS

in a simple way you can define that Actus REUS refers to the Physical Element of a crim.which are based
some categories like Conduct (commission and Omission), Circumstances and Consequences/Result.

An Actus REUS consist of more than just an act.It also consists of wherever Circumstances and
Consequences are recognized for liability for the offence in question .

Crime's can be divided into two categories:

• first, there are Conduct crime where the Actus REUS is the prohibited conduct itself.

• second, type are known as Result crimes where the Actus REUS of the offence requires proof that
the conduct caused a prohibited result or consequence.

THE ACTUS REUS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

The accused conduct must be "Voluntary" or "Freely willed" if he is to incur liability. It may be
involuntary for a variety of reasons:

(i) AUTOMATISM

this occurs where the defendant performed a physical act but is unaware of what he is doing or is not
control of his action because of some external factor

This preferred on the CA'se of R vs.QUICK {1973} 3 All ER 345.

(ii) REFLEX ACTION

Due to this reason occurred sometimes people can respond to something with a spontaneous reflex
action cover which they have no control. The example is that given in Hill vs. Baxter {1958}1All ER193,
of someone being study by a swarm of bees while driving and losing control of the car.

(iii) PHYSICAL FORCE

The conduct may be involuntary in that it is physically forced by someone Else in which case there will be
no Actus reus.see the case of Leicester v Pearson (1952)2 All ER 71.

OMISSIONS : The general rule is that there can be no liability for failing to act unless at the time of the
failure to act the defendant was under a legal duty to take positive action.

"Unless a staute specifically so provides or...the common law imposes a duty upon a person to act in a
particular way towards another.. A mere omission to act (cannoy lead to criminal liability) this are
explained under the case of. R vs. Miller ( 1983)1 All ER 978.

CAUSATION: when an Actus reus requires the occurrence of ascertain consequence the prosecution
must prove that it was the defendant's conduct which caused those consequences to occur.

In such crimes it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused act caused the consequence
or in other words that the accused is liable as a matter of causation for the crime.

Most of the reported cases are concerned with murder and Manslaughter where certain problems do
arise.for Example case of R v White (1910)2 KB 124

MENS REA

Is the mental element of crime.

The general Principle of men's rea

Many crimes need actus reus and also men's rea .The men's rea is the guit mind and often the
distinguished factor between different crimes. For Example, the main difference between Section 18 and
Section 20 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861 is mens rea required.men's rea must be
distinguished from motive. Whilst the motive behind a criminal act may give an indication of the
defendant's men's rea , it is generally irrelevant. Motive can be relevant in some crimes such as racially
motivated Assault and can also be a factor that occur will take into account on passing sentence.

Categories of men's rea

INTENTION

Can be either direct intention or oblique indirect intention.

One definition of direct intent can be see in the case of Mohan [1976],where it was said that direct
intention is a decision to bring about, so far as it lies in the defendants power the criminal consequence,
noatter whether the defendant desired that consequence of his act or not.

RECKLESSNESS

the level of mens rea lower than intention, where in the defendant knows there a risk but goes ahead
and takes it any way .case of Cunningham [1957]: sets out the essential definition of subjective
recklessness which is used in the mens rea of many crimes.

Some crimes require the lower level of mens rea of recklessness. The type of recklessness that is used is
subjective recklessness. This occur where defendant knows there a risk of criminal consequence , is
willing to take it and takes it deliberately.

NEGLIGENCE

Is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person/acting in a way that
below the standard expected if the reasonable person in the same situations as the defendant.

Ingredients of negligence duty breach duty damage Cass of R v Chapel Kalangali [1973] TLR 77 and

Fagan v MPC (1969): here there was a continuing act so there was coincidence of actus reus and mens
rea when the mens rea was later formed.

CONCLUSION

The general principal of coincidence between Actus reus and mens rea is sometimes interpreted quite
widely to ensure that there can be a convention where someone is truly guilty.