cases concerning the contemporanity of actus reus and mens rea?

Answer 1

Listed here! http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:TuTyeRM_I6QJ:sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod4/cases_03_actus_contemporaneity.htm+england+actus+reus+mens+rea+cases&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

Answer 2

Mens Rea, as an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.

The actus reus — sometimes called the external elements of a crime, activity that transgresses moral or civil law.

Pick any homicide case.

Answer 3

Thabo Meli v R (1954) 1 AER 373 (PC) Four defendants intended to kill their victim so they induced him to consume alcohol, struck him on the head and threw the "body" over a cliff to make the death appear accidental. Because they thought that the blow had killed him, there was no mens rea when they abandoned him and he died from exposure. The first act did not cause death but had the appropriate mens rea. The second act caused death but had no mens rea. But the Privy Council held that it was impossible to divide up what was really one transaction. The actus reus was said to be the series of acts and omissions with mens rea covering the initial stages.
In R v Church (1965) 2 AER 72 during an argument, the defendant struck the victim and, mistakenly believing her to be dead, threw her into a nearby river where she drowned. He was convicted of manslaughter.
In R v LeBrun (199]]1) 4 AER 673, the defendant struck his wife during an argument outside their house leaving her unconscious. He then tried to drag her inside but, as he did so, her head struck the pavement, fracturing her skull and killing her. At first sight, this is distinguishable from R v Church because death was accidental, whereas Church was intentionally disposing of the "body". But, in attempting to drag his unconscious wife indoors, LeBrun was either trying to conceal his initial assault on her, or forcing her to enter the house against her wishes (this being the original reason for the argument). The trial judge had directed the jury to acquit if they concluded that LeBrun had been trying to help his wife when he moved her, and the Court of Appeal agreed that this would have broken the essential nexus between the two halves of the incident.
In AG's Reference (No. 4 of 1980) (1981) 2 AER 617 the defendant was struggling with his girlfriend and she fell over a landing rail on to the floor below. Believing her dead, he dismembered her in the bath to dispose of her "body". It was impossible to prove whether she had died in the original fall or whether he killed her by his subsequent actions. The Court of Appeal held that a manslaughter conviction was only possible if each of the defendant's acts was accompanied by the requisite mens rea for that offence. At the very least, there must be an unlawful act which was the cause of the ultimate death. It was not enough to establish criminal negligence only in the subsequent act of disposal. Hence, the prosecution had to disprove D's claim of accident, i.e. that he had merely pushed her away in a "reflex action" when she dug her nails into him in the struggle on the upstairs landing.

Answer 4

To be "in charge" of a criminal offense and devote an offensive act (the actus reas) you additionally should have the rationale to realize this (the mens rea) on the comparable time! occasion: a guy jokingly pronounced to his acquaintances in a pub his spouse became into doing his head in and he might kill her. the following day he accidently ran her over while reversing out of the force. He might might desire to coach that he didnt have the mens rea. on the time of the act. in spite of if the decide might locate him in charge simply by a "series of activities" as he had the mens rea the day previously