2. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY In this lecture, we will consider: Burden and standard of proof in a criminal trial The building blocks of criminal liability - - the actus reus - the mens rea Transferred malice

3. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove D committed the actus reus with the requisite mens rea and had no defence. Standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Exceptions to Woolmington principle covered in criminal law Diminished responsibility Insanity

5. The 2 elements which make up a criminal offence are the actus reus and the mens rea.

6. How is the actus reus identified? The starting point in determining the actus reus is the definition of the offence. The actus reus will commonly consist of two or more of the following: Conduct Consequences of conduct Circumstances

7. Conduct A voluntary act is normally required but in limited circumstances D may be liable for his omission to act.

8. Involuntariness may provide a basis for a general excuse to criminal liability.

9. Sometimes conduct may consist of a mere “state of affairs” involving no act, as such, no willed muscular movement.

10. Consequences of the conduct D’s conduct must have caused the consequence required by the actus reus.

11. Circumstances in which the conduct took place The actus reus will often require that certain circumstances existed at the time of the prohibited conduct.

12. MENS REA The guilty mind Do not confuse motive with mens rea The two most common mens rea words are: Intention Recklessness

13. Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea A basic rule of general application is that the mens rea must coincide in point of time with the act which causes the actus reus. Exceptions: (i) Cases involving cover up of apparent death (ii) Dutch courage

14. Relevant cases Thabo Meli v The Queen (1954) Church (1966) Le Brun (1991) Fagan (1969) Miller (1969)

15. DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE It is a basic rule of the criminal law that if D, with the mens rea of a particular crime, does an act which causes the actus reus of the same crime, he will be guilty even though the end result is in some respects an unintended one.

16. Relevant caselaw: Latimer (1886) Pembliton (1874)

17. The doctrine allows for the transfer of defences.