Introduction
The concept of criminal liability has developed over the course of time. The decision-making processes based on the principles of common law and the judicial interpretation of the existing statutory laws have shaped the legislation with regard to criminal matters.1 In this regard, the two key elements of criminal liability, actus reus and mens rea, need to be considered, and the ways they are interpreted in different cases need to be examined. Furthermore, it is essential to evaluate and compare the features of the given jurisdiction for the study of the criminal process. Therefore, this essay focuses on the United Kingdom court cases to explore the principles and aspects of criminal liability, inchoate offenses, and property offenses. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the elements, development, and merits of criminal liability and explore how the UK courts have interpreted the actus reus and mens rea elements of Attempts and Theft.
The Elements of Criminal Liability
To begin with, it is essential to discuss the main elements of criminal liability and their importance for the legislative process. To be found guilty of an offense, a person must be characterized by two features, including an illegal act and a guilty state of mind, or the intention to commit it.2 Under the UK criminal justice system, the simultaneous existence of both elements is generally required to declare someone guilty.
Actus reus refers to the Latin phrase meaning a guilty act. To convict an individual of a crime, it is necessary to establish that they committed a prohibited act. In other words, merely thinking about an illegal act is not enough to find a person guilty. According to Garvey, “actus reus under the rights theory constitutes a limit, expressed in the language of rights, on a democratic state’s authority to define conditions of culpability and this liability to state punishment.”3 It is essential to note that actus reus can refer to both commission and omission of an act.
In turn, mens rea is another essential element of criminal liability. It refers to a guilty mind or a mental aspect of the illegal act. In other words, it can be described as a fault element which means that an individual had the intention to commit an offense, such as to cause harm or death to another person. It is worth noting that one’s ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse.4 Overall, the actus reus and mens rea elements play a major role in establishing an individual’s guilt and intention to commit a crime.
The Development and Merits of Criminal Liability, Inchoate Offences, and Property Offences
To explore the subject in more detail, it is necessary to analyze and evaluate the development and merits of the principles of criminal liability, inchoate offenses, and property offenses. The development of criminal liability and legislation is based on the decision-making processes and the application of legal norms in the historical context. The courts evaluate the decisions’ merits with regard to criminal legislation. In particular, this essay focuses on analyzing the UK court decisions on inchoate offenses and property offenses. The former refers to one’s attempts to commit a crime, while the latter involves the crime with regard to private property.
The Actus Reus and Mens Rea Elements of Attempts
There is an example of the UK court’s interpretation of the mens rea and actus reus of a theft attempt. In the case of R V Easom, the accused picked up and inspected a handbag left by a woman at the cinema, after which he placed it back without taking anything.5 Initially, the accused was convinced of theft; however, his conditional intent to steal in case there were valuable items was found as insufficient mens rea for a charge of theft or attempt. Similarly, it was held that the actus reus element was not met since the defendant did not deprive the plaintiff of the bag or its contents.
The Actus Reus and Mens Rea Elements of Theft
Several examples can be considered with regard to an act of appropriation. In the case of R v Morris, Anderton v Burnside, both defendants replaced price labels on the items from a supermarket and paid less for the goods.6 The House of Lords upheld the convictions since the switching of the price tags implied the assumptions of the rights of the supermarket owner, which constitutes an act of appropriation. The court interpreted the replacement of the price labels as the actus reus for theft, regardless of the fact if the defendants paid for the goods or not yet. The mens rea of the accused was confirmed as they were found to be dishonest and intending to deprive the owner of the goods at a lower price.
Another example can be discussed with regard to the act of appropriation. In the case of Lawrence v MPC, the defendant was found guilty of theft.7 He took a one-pound banknote from an Italian man for giving him a taxi ride and proceeded to take another five-pound banknote from his wallet without his consent. The House of Lords upheld his conviction due to the presence of both actus reus and mens rea. The driver committed an act of appropriation and had the intention of permanently depriving the plaintiff of more money than legally decided. Finally, another case, R v Lavender, is an example of the court’s interpretation of the defendant’s actions as disposal.8 He removed the doors of the council property and installed them at another council property to replace the damaged ones. The actus reus, in this case, was found to be accompanied by mens rea since the defendant intended to treat the doors as if he were the owner.
Reform Proposals
Based on the examples discussed in this paper, it can be concluded that a certain reform of the theft legislature might be needed to make it more explicit. In particular, currently, the defendant can be found guilty of theft even if the victim was not deprived of their property. However, the core wrong-doing characteristic of theft is the act of taking and keeping the property. Therefore, the current law and the courts’ interpretation can be changed to view appropriation as acts of serious and dishonest interference with property.
Conclusion
To summarize, the concept of criminal liability revolves around its two key elements, actus reus and mens rea. The judicial interpretations of the existing laws have shaped the legislation with regard to criminal matters. Currently, an individual might be convicted of theft even when the owner was not deprived of the property. Therefore, given the courts’ approach to interpreting the actus reus and mens rea of thefts and attempts, it can be concluded that the theft legislature might be reformed to become more explicit.
References
Brown D, Turner J and Weisser B (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process (Oxford University Press 2019).
Garvey S, Guilty Acts, Guilty Minds (Oxford University Press 2020).
Footnotes
- Darryl Brown, Jenia Turner and Bettina Weisser (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process (Oxford University Press 2019) 11.
- Ibid 24.
- Stephen Garvey, Guilty Acts, Guilty Minds (Oxford University Press 2020) 87.
- Ibid 94.
- R V Easom [1971] 2 QB 315.
- R v Morris, Anderton v Burnside [1984] AC 320.
- Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626.
- R v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297.