Law Essay - Criminal Law Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Law - Criminal Law - Essay Example Therefore in respect of the facts at hand unless a case beyond reasonable is made in respect of John he would be deemed to be innocent. (Woolmington v. DPP)1 (Oremond et al, 2011) On the basis of the above discussion it is important to bear in mind that criminal liability would accrue if the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof vests with the prosecution. An important principle that is also laid down is that the actus reus and mens rea of the offence must coincide, however the courts have adopted a broad approach in respect of the same. (Clarkson et al, 2010) In respect of proving an offence the requirement is that of actus reus, mens rea and the absence of any defence (Lord Diplock in R v Miller). There has been an important requirement that actus reus and mens rea need to coincide, however it is pertinent to mention that the said requirement has been interpreted broadly. (Fagan v. Commissioner of Police)2. A situation where it was found that the actus r eus and mens rea had coincided was that the conduct of the defendant created a situation of danger (R v. Miller)3. (Oremond et al, 2011) The actus reus of an offence is usually satisfied when a positive act is committed. There has often been the requirement that the act that has been committed must be voluntary, as was defined by Lord Denning that ‘No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily, and an involuntary act in this context...means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking...’ (Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland)4 . Thus the act of the defendant must therefore be voluntary and a wilful movement of body. (Simester et al 2009), The second element is that of mens rea which deals with the state of mind of the accused. The criteria for m ens rea has been developed and is ongoing for a number of years and the cases that were decided upon took into consideration the intention, subjective recklessness, objective recklessness, lacuna etc. (Simester et al 2009), As far as mens is concerned the current situation is that of Woollin5 and R v. G which has been attained after refining of the original test for intention. Thus the test is that there must either be direct intent that is the defendant had intended a result by committing the particular act; or oblique intent that is the result may have been that which was a virtually certain consequence of the act. (Oremond et al, 2011) The issue in respect of the liability that requires an evaluation is that whether in respect of the facts at hand there is an element of causation which would break the chain of causation. The test of causation first deals with factual issues that is would the harm have occurred but for the action of the defendant, this is what is known as the â₠¬Ëœbut for’ test (R v. White)6. It is evident by the facts that the act of John had led to the harm and so the ‘but for’ test proves the fact that the harm was in fact caused by John. The second issue requires determination of legal causation that is whether the acts of John were the substantial and the operating cause