Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In criminal law, mens rea (/ ˈ m ɛ n z ˈ r eɪ ə /; Law Latin for "guilty mind" [1]) is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus ("guilty act") before the defendant can be found guilty.
The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law are derived from a principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, [1] which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or ...
[1] [2] [3] The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, [1] embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. [2] In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, [4] [5] while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. [6]
The phrase mens rea is typically translated as "guilty mind" and describes the expected mental state of an accused. General intent is an awareness of factors constituting the crime, including attendant circumstances. The criminal must be aware of committing an illegal act and that attendant circumstances are likely to occur. The requisite ...
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act"). If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see: Common purpose).
In the criminal law, both a culpable mens rea and a criminal actus reus are generally required for an offense to occur. For these purposes, the term "actus reus" does not have a single definition, but it represents the general principle that before an individual may be convicted of an offense, it must be shown that there was an overt act in ...
A mens rea requirement is added to the attempt of crimes of strict liability (where there is no intent or merely objective recklessness), although the ruling in Attorney General's Reference (No. 3 of 1992) makes this less certain. [12] Section 1(1) also provides that the actus reus must be "more than merely preparatory".
In terms of mens rea, any form of recklessness, including virtual certainty, is insufficient for an offence under Section 44, in part due to the existence of Section 45 and 46 which aid its interpretation.