The Elements of A Crime
Published on May 08, 2017
These notes will help you to understand the two components that must exist for a person to be charged with and convicted of a crime under Canadian Law.
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Actus Reus
- "The Guilty Action"
- The physical act, omission or state of being involved in committing the offence referred to in criminal law.
To convict a person of a criminal offence in Canada the crown must usually prove that two elements existed:
The first is the act itself.
The criminal code defines the wrongful act in a clear and precise fashion so that we understand exactly what is prohibited by law.
Omission:
Failing to do something can be considered a wrongful act.
Example:
Parents who do not give their infant child enough food to eat. As a result, the child dies of malnutrition. The parents could be charged with failing to provide the necessities of life.
State of Being
Example:
-Being in possession of stolen goods.
-Possession of break-in tools
-Being in possession of child pornography
-Possession of Drugs
-Being in an illegal establishment.
The first is the act itself.
The criminal code defines the wrongful act in a clear and precise fashion so that we understand exactly what is prohibited by law.
Omission:
Failing to do something can be considered a wrongful act.
Example:
Parents who do not give their infant child enough food to eat. As a result, the child dies of malnutrition. The parents could be charged with failing to provide the necessities of life.
State of Being
Example:
-Being in possession of stolen goods.
-Possession of break-in tools
-Being in possession of child pornography
-Possession of Drugs
-Being in an illegal establishment.
Photo by cali.org
Actus Reus - Example
- In most cases a criminal act must be completed to meet the criteria of an offence.
- Actus Reus must be voluntary.
- Assault (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
If you argue with another person and then strike that person is the face, you have committed the criminal act of assault. (Actus Reus)
If you only thought of striking someone but the person saw you were angry and ran away before you could hit them you would not be guilty of assault.
Non-Voluntary Examples of Actus Reus:
Forced to rob a store at knife point
Someone does something illegal while sleepwalking, epileptic seizure causes someone to strike someone else.
In all of these cases, the individual who harmed someone/committed the offence would not be criminally responsible. Civil liability is a different matter, however.
If you only thought of striking someone but the person saw you were angry and ran away before you could hit them you would not be guilty of assault.
Non-Voluntary Examples of Actus Reus:
Forced to rob a store at knife point
Someone does something illegal while sleepwalking, epileptic seizure causes someone to strike someone else.
In all of these cases, the individual who harmed someone/committed the offence would not be criminally responsible. Civil liability is a different matter, however.
Photo by Isengardt
Mens Rea
- The Guilty Mind
- The act was intentional, knowing, negligent, reckless, or willfully blind.
- Acronym – "WINKR"
Mens Rea is the second component necessary to convict a person of a criminal offence in Canada. The crown must prove that the accused person deliberately did something he or she knew was wrong.
Intent, Knowledge, Negligence, Recklessness or willful blindness can all be used to show the guilty mind.
Intent, Knowledge, Negligence, Recklessness or willful blindness can all be used to show the guilty mind.
Photo by illuminaut
Mens Rea - Intent
- He or she meant to do something wrong.
- Reckless regarding the consequences.
- Results are foreseeable.
The criminal code uses words such as wilfully or intentionally to signify intent.
In describing the act of assault - “applies force intentionally”
The word "intentionally" signifies the Mens Rea in the definition of assault.
In describing the act of assault - “applies force intentionally”
The word "intentionally" signifies the Mens Rea in the definition of assault.
Photo by Danny.
Types of Intent
- General Intent:
- Commit a wrongful act with no additional motive.
- Specific Intent:
- The desire to commit one wrongful act to accomplish another.
In Canadian Criminal Law there are two kinds of intent General and Specific Intent
General intent Example:
George Punches Bob because he is mad at him.
To prove Mens Rea:
Simply have to prove George intended to punch Bob.
Specific intent: George punches Bob to render him incapacitated so that he can rob him.
To prove Mens Rea:
Have to establish George punched Bob with the purpose of Robbery.
To help determine whether an offence is specific or general intent consider the following:
What is the mental element of the offence, and its ‘relative importance?’ Crimes with a more sophisticated and relatively important mens rea will likely be classified as specific intent, whereas those which require little mental acuity – in other words, where the actus reus is truly the crux of the offence – would fall under the latter category.
Self-induced intoxication is no defence to a crime of “general intent,” although it may be admissible as a defence to a crime of “specific intent.”
General intent Example:
George Punches Bob because he is mad at him.
To prove Mens Rea:
Simply have to prove George intended to punch Bob.
Specific intent: George punches Bob to render him incapacitated so that he can rob him.
To prove Mens Rea:
Have to establish George punched Bob with the purpose of Robbery.
To help determine whether an offence is specific or general intent consider the following:
What is the mental element of the offence, and its ‘relative importance?’ Crimes with a more sophisticated and relatively important mens rea will likely be classified as specific intent, whereas those which require little mental acuity – in other words, where the actus reus is truly the crux of the offence – would fall under the latter category.
Self-induced intoxication is no defence to a crime of “general intent,” although it may be admissible as a defence to a crime of “specific intent.”
Motive v. Intent
- Motive is the reason a person commits a crime.
- Intent refers to the state of mind.
- Motive is not one of the elements that the crown must prove to convict the accused.
A persons motive for robbing a store is the money.
To prove “Mens Rea” or intent: The crown must establish that the offender knew a particular act was wrong but did it anyway.
This could be done in any number of ways.
For Example:
Perhaps the offender is trying to conceal his/her identity.
To prove “Mens Rea” or intent: The crown must establish that the offender knew a particular act was wrong but did it anyway.
This could be done in any number of ways.
For Example:
Perhaps the offender is trying to conceal his/her identity.
Photo by marc thiele
Mens Rea - Knowledge
- Awareness of Certain Facts.
- Example: (s. 368 CCC)
- Everyone who, knowing that a document is forged, uses, deals, or acts upon it, is guilty of an indictable offence
Knowing –
indicates the mens Rea
The crown only needs to establish that the accused knew that the document was forged.
In this case the crown does not need to demonstrate the defendants intent to something either general or specific.
An Indictable offence is an offence with typically a heavier penalty.
indicates the mens Rea
The crown only needs to establish that the accused knew that the document was forged.
In this case the crown does not need to demonstrate the defendants intent to something either general or specific.
An Indictable offence is an offence with typically a heavier penalty.
Photo by ores2k
Consider This...
- Under current Canadian law, Children under 12 are not considered capable of forming mens rea; therefore, they are not held responsible for the crimes they commit.
- Should they be held criminally responsible?
Think about what you were like as an 11-year-old.
Generally, officials can only deal with a child who is under 12 that breaks the law by following provincial guidelines which differ depending on the province you are in.
Check out this article to see how this works in practice.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sarah-e-leamon/young-offenders_b_11876514.htm...
Generally, officials can only deal with a child who is under 12 that breaks the law by following provincial guidelines which differ depending on the province you are in.
Check out this article to see how this works in practice.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sarah-e-leamon/young-offenders_b_11876514.htm...
Photo by horizontal.integration
Mens Rea - Criminal Negligence
- Section 219 Everyone is criminally negligent who: In doing anything, or In omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others.
- The mens rea is the “wanton or reckless disregard”
In some cases the crown can establish mens rea existed by proving negligence.
Person had the intent to commit the crime because of the “wanton or reckless disregard”
Examples:
(1)Leaving a toddler at home alone and the toddler falls down the stairs.
(2)Leaving a loaded gun lying around on the coffee table.
Section 219 creates no offence. It describes "criminal negligence" with liability coming from the offences under s.220 or s.221 depending upon the consequences.
If death or bodily harm results. Criminal Negligence causing death is also a form of culpable homicide and manslaughter.
Various sections of the criminal code, as well as other statutes, impose duties of care, a breach of which can become the basis of criminal negligence.
Person had the intent to commit the crime because of the “wanton or reckless disregard”
Examples:
(1)Leaving a toddler at home alone and the toddler falls down the stairs.
(2)Leaving a loaded gun lying around on the coffee table.
Section 219 creates no offence. It describes "criminal negligence" with liability coming from the offences under s.220 or s.221 depending upon the consequences.
If death or bodily harm results. Criminal Negligence causing death is also a form of culpable homicide and manslaughter.
Various sections of the criminal code, as well as other statutes, impose duties of care, a breach of which can become the basis of criminal negligence.
Photo by Cayusa
Mens Rea - Recklessness
- Taking an unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would not take.
- In circumstances of recklessness the accused had the necessary intent to commit the crime because of the reckless behaviour.
Recklessness and Negligence are closely linked. The difference appears to be in the nature of the offence.
Recklessness appears to be an overt conscious action.
Negligence can either be a conscious or unconscious act.
Where the risk is taken consciously, the difference between negligence and recklessness is that, with recklessness, it is much more unreasonable to take the risk; this calls for a value judgment in each individual case.
Recklessness appears to be an overt conscious action.
Negligence can either be a conscious or unconscious act.
Where the risk is taken consciously, the difference between negligence and recklessness is that, with recklessness, it is much more unreasonable to take the risk; this calls for a value judgment in each individual case.
Photo by shock264
Mens Rea - Wilful Blindness
- Deliberately closing your mind to the possible consequences of your actions. Aware of the need to make an inquiry but fail to do so because you do not wish to know the truth.
Example of Wilful Blindness:
Someone offers you a used car for a ridiculously good price. There has been a report on the news of cars of this model being stolen from the area. You know you should investigate but don’t want to pass up on the deal.
You could be charged with possession of stolen property. The “mens rea” is the wilful blindness. Essentially the fact that you knew the car had likely been stolen.
Someone offers you a used car for a ridiculously good price. There has been a report on the news of cars of this model being stolen from the area. You know you should investigate but don’t want to pass up on the deal.
You could be charged with possession of stolen property. The “mens rea” is the wilful blindness. Essentially the fact that you knew the car had likely been stolen.
Photo by YanivG
Strict Liability Offences
- These are offences which do not require Mens Rea.
- Can offer the defence of due diligence
- Due Diligence:
- The defence that the accused took every reasonable precaution to prevent the crime from occurring.
For some less serious offences the crown does not have to prove “mens rea” such offences are often against regulatory laws.
Regulatory Laws:
Federal or provincial statutes meant to protect the public.
If legislators want the crown to establish mens rea. Then words such as willfully or with intent much be included. When such words are not included it is assumed that the offences do not require mens rea.
Examples:
Environment protection, workplace safety, Traffic offences
Offences that do not require mens rea can be grouped into two liability categories:
Strict liability offences & Absolute liability offences
Liability: Legal responsibility for a wrongful action.
Strict Liability Offence Example:
A company is charged with polluting a river. The company shows that it has had environmental protection policies in effect such as monitoring devices and special training for staff. It is determined that the river became polluted when there was a record rainfall. The judge ruled the company had shown due diligence and thus was acquitted of the charges.
Regulatory Laws:
Federal or provincial statutes meant to protect the public.
If legislators want the crown to establish mens rea. Then words such as willfully or with intent much be included. When such words are not included it is assumed that the offences do not require mens rea.
Examples:
Environment protection, workplace safety, Traffic offences
Offences that do not require mens rea can be grouped into two liability categories:
Strict liability offences & Absolute liability offences
Liability: Legal responsibility for a wrongful action.
Strict Liability Offence Example:
A company is charged with polluting a river. The company shows that it has had environmental protection policies in effect such as monitoring devices and special training for staff. It is determined that the river became polluted when there was a record rainfall. The judge ruled the company had shown due diligence and thus was acquitted of the charges.
Photo by monkeyc.net
Absolute Liability Offences
- The Offences does not require mens rea
- No defence is possible
You cannot be imprisoned for absolute liability offences since you cannot offer any defence:
some examples:
speeding
driving without your license
No defence is possible once the crown has established the offence took place and accused was responsible for it.
some examples:
speeding
driving without your license
No defence is possible once the crown has established the offence took place and accused was responsible for it.
Photo by 20 characters ...
