Criminal Law - Theft Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Criminal Law - Theft - Case Study Example It takes into account the circumstances and consequences aimed at establishing the liability of the defendant in a criminal charge. It reasons beyond the mental elements to other facts surrounding the commission of the offence charged. CONDUCT CRIME: Where there are conduct crimes, the actus reus in itself is a prohibited conduct. Thus, in a case of dangerous driving, harmful consequences need not be established to prove the defendant's actus reus. [1] RESULT CRIMES: It must be shown that a prohibited result is caused by the conduct of the defendant. In a criminal damage for instance, the actus reus will be that another person's property has been destroyed and or damaged. [2] It is pertinent to state that the conduct of the accused person should be free willed or voluntary in order to incur liability. Acts may sometimes be involuntary. They may result from a wide variety of reasons such as: REFLEX ACTIONS: These are situations where people react to things spontaneously. It can be viewed as a form of automatism but with some dissimilarity. A classical example is illustrated in the case of HILL v. BAXTER [3] where a driver was stung by bees while on steering driving and he lost control of the car. AUTOMATISM: This occurs where the defendant performs an act but is unaware of what he or she doing. It is also the case where due to some external factors; such defendant is not in control of his or her actions. R v. QUICK [4] CAUSATION: At instances where the ascertainment of actus reus requires that certain consequences occur, the prosecution must prove that the defendants conduct actually resulted in the occurrence of those consequences.Thus in a charge of murder, the prosecution must prove that the victim died .[5] It must be established that the victim suffered grievous bodily harm or in a criminal damage, that the property was destroyed or damaged. TWO TYPES OF CAUSATION: 1 Causation of facts which makes use of the "But For" test .R v. WHITE [6] 2 Causation in law for which the defendant's act must be( for example in homicide cases), the "operating and substantial cause of death" R v. SMITH [7] 3 [1958] 1 All ER 193 4. [1973] 3 All ER 347 5 S.18 Offences against the Person Act, 1861 6 [1910] 2 KB 124 7 [1959] 2 All ER 193 MENS REA Mens rea is used to establish criminal liability. The standard common law test is usually expressed with the maxim actus non facit reum mens sit rea, which means that an act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty. There must be an actus reus accompanied by mens rea to constitute the crime for which the defendant is charged. The exception here is strict liability crimes. Mens rea can be classified into three sub - heads namely; INTENTION - Here the defendant is shown to have foreseen the consequences of his action. RECKLESSNESS - Has been developed in the case of R v. CUNNINGHAM [1957] 2 AER 412. Where recklessness, was said to be requiring a subjective other than objective test. Malice in statutory definition of crime must be considered to require either: (i) The actual intention to inflict a particular harm that was done;