Criminal Law - Theft Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Criminal Law - Theft - Case Study ExampleIt takes into account the circumstances and consequences aimed at establishing the financial obligation of the defendant in a criminal charge. It reasons beyond the mental elements to other facts surrounding the commission of the offence charged.CONDUCT CRIME Where there are clear crimes, the actus reus in itself is a prohibited conduct. Thus, in a case of dangerous driving, harmful consequences need not be establish to prove the defendants actus reus. 1RESULT CRIMES It essential(prenominal) be shown that a prohibited result is seduced by the conduct of the defendant. In a criminal damage for instance, the actus reus will be that another persons property has been unmake and or damaged. 2It is pertinent to state that the conduct of the accused person should be free willed or voluntary in order to incur liability. Acts may sometimes be involuntary. They may result from a wide variety of reasons such asREFLEX ACTIONS These are devolve onu ations where people react to things spontaneously. It can be viewed as a form of automatism but with some dissimilarity. A classical example is illustrated in the case of HILL v. BAXTER 3 where a driver was stung by bees piece of music on steering driving and he lost control of the car.AUTOMATISM This occurs where the defendant performs an act but is unaware of what he or she doing. It is also the case where due(p) to some external factors such defendant is not in control of his or her actions. R v. QUICK 4CAUSATION At instances where the ascertainment of actus reus requires that certain consequences occur, the prosecution must prove that the defendants conduct actually resulted in the occurrence of those consequences.Thus in a charge of murder, the prosecution must prove that the victim died .5It must be established that the victim suffered grievous bodily harm or in a criminal damage, that the property was destroyed or damaged. TWO TYPES OF CAUSATION1 originator of facts which makes use of the But For test .R v. WHITE 62 Causation in law for which the defendants act must be( for example in homicide cases), the operating and substantial cause of death R v. SMITH 73 1958 1 All ER 1934. 1973 3 All ER 3475 S.18 Offences against the Person Act, 18616 1910 2 KB 1247 1959 2 All ER 193MENS REAMens rea is used to establish criminal liability. The standard common law test is usually expressed with the maxim actus non facit reum mens sit rea, which means that an act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty. There must be an actus reus accompanied by mens rea to constitute the crime for which the defendant is charged. The exception here is strict liability crimes. Mens rea can be classified into three sub - heads namely INTENTION - here the defendant is shown to have foreseen the consequences of his action. RECKLESSNESS - Has been developed in the case of R v. CUNNINGHAM 1957 2 AER 412. Where recklessness, was said to be requiring a subjective ot her than objective test. nastiness in statutory definition of crime must be considered to require either (i) The actual intention to inflict a particular harm that was through