It is a basic principle of The english language law that the actus reus and men’s rea must coincide. That is certainly they must happen at the same time. This is certainly sometimes called the contemporaneity rule or perhaps the coincidence of actus reus and males rea. Yet , the process of law often apply a flexible strategy in keeping that the actus reus is actually a continuing action.
Thabo-Meli sixth is v R [1954] 1 WLR 228 Privy Council
The four appellants were convicted of killing. They had planned to get rid of a man and then make it appear like an accident.
They took him to a shelter and beat him within the head. Assuming that having been dead, then they took his body to a cliff and threw this off. Medical evidence confirmed that the dearly departed died from exposure of being left at the end of the high cliff and not in the blow to the head. They will appealed against their convictions on the grounds that the actus reus and males rea from the crime would not coincide.
That is to say whenever they formed the intention to kill, there was no actus reus because the man was still alive. When they threw him off the high cliff, there was no mens rea as they may intend to get rid of someone that they believed had been dead. Held: Convictions maintained. The act of beating him and throwing him off the cliff was a single continuing take action.
Lord Reid:
“It seems to their Lordships impossible to divide up the thing that was really one transaction in this manner. There is no doubt that the accused attempt to do all of these acts to be able to achieve all their plan as parts of their plan; in fact it is much too sophisticated a floor of wisdom to say that, because these were under a misapprehension at 1 stage and thought that their very own guilty goal and been achieved just before in fact it had been achieved, as a result they are to escape the penalties of the regulation.
Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439
A cop was leading the accused to recreation area his car. The defendant accidentally forced onto the policeman’s ft .. The cop shouted in him to get off. The defendant rejected to move. The defendant argued at the time of the actus reus, the driving a car onto the foot, this individual lacked the mens rea of any kind of offence since it was purely accidental. When he created the guys rea, this individual lacked the actus reus as he do nothing. Kept: The generating on to the ft . and staying there was element of a continuing action.
R sixth is v Hale [1978] 68 Cr App R 415
Both the defendants out of cash into a female’s home. One particular went upstairs and had taken some jewelry from her bedroom. Following taking the jewellery the two of them linked her up. They were convicted of robbery and become a huge hit on the grounds that the force arrived after they got appropriate the jewellery and thus did not come within the dependence on being immediately before or perhaps at the time of robbing. Held: Convictions upheld. The appropriation from the jewellery was obviously a continuing work.
Eveleigh LJ:
“To the conduct is over and carried out with as soon as he laid practical the property is definitely contrary to common sense and to the natural that means of the words and phrases. The take action of prise does not stop. It is a ongoing act in fact it is a matter intended for the court to decide set up appropriation offers finished.
The Law of Robbery
The offence of robbery is contained in s. 8 in the Theft Action 1968. In criminal law, robbery is a type of cut theft, for the reason that it requires the offence of thievery plus power or danger of push on a person. The most sentence for robbery can be life imprisonment. Under s i9000. 8 from the Theft Work 1968 “a person is guilty of theft if he steals, and immediately prior to or at the time of doing so, and to do so, this individual uses force on any person or puts or attempts to put any person in anxiety about being then simply and generally there subjected to push.
The principle of all the cases previously mentioned will be:
Actus reus and men rea must be match in the level of time for the offender to be accountable
one particular
