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

Criminal Law - Theft - Case Study shellIt takes into account the circumstances and consequences aimed at ca-caing the liability of the defendant in a criminal charge. It reasons beyond the psychic elements to other facts surrounding the commission of the offence charged.CONDUCT CRIME Where there are take in 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 defendants actus reus. 1RESULT 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 persons property has been destroyed and or damaged. 2It is pertinent to state that the conduct of the accused person should be free willed or voluntary in order to incur liability. Acts may nearlytimes be involuntary. They may result from a wide miscellany of reasons such asREFLEX ACTIONS These are situations where people react to t hings 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 examine 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 actor 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 dupe died .5It 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 CAUSATION1 designer of facts which makes use of the But For test .R v. WHITE 62 Causa tion in law for which the defendants act must be( for example in homicide cases), the operating and substantial cause of oddment R v. SMITH 73 1958 1 All ER 1934. 1973 3 All ER 3475 S.18 Offences against the Person Act, 18616 1910 2 KB 1247 1959 2 All ER 193MENS REAMens 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 direction that an act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty. thither must be an actus reus accompanied by mens rea to constitute the crime for which the defendant is charged. The exception here is rigid 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 statuto ry definition of crime must be considered to require either (i) The actual intention to inflict a particular harm that was done