|
Concur
In Western jurisprudence, concurrence (also contemporaneity or simultaneity) is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both ("guilty action") and ("guilty mind"), to constitute a crime; except in crimes of strict liability. In theory, if the does not hold concurrence in point of time with the then no crime has been committed. Discussion Suppose for example that the accused accidentally injures a pedestrian while driving. Aware of the collision, the accused rushes from the car only to find that the victim is a hated enemy. At this point, the accused joyfully proclaims his pleasure at having caused the injury. The conventional rule is that no crime has been committed. The ''actus reus'' is complete, and no rule of ratification applies in the criminal law. Whereas in the law of agency, a principal may retrospectively adopt a transaction as if the agent had originally been authorised to conclude an agreement with a third party ("ratification" of the agent' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fagan V Metropolitan Police Commissioner
''Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner'' is a leading case that confirms the need for concurrence (or coincidence) of ''actus reus'' (Latin for "guilty act") and '' mens rea'' (Latin for "guilty mind") in most offences of the criminal law of England and Wales. It also advises realisation that a battery is ongoing will render the omission to act to remove that battery being inflicted a conscious battery, being sufficient ''concurrence''. Facts The defendant, Mr. Fagan, was in his car when a police officer approached him and told him to move his car. In accordance with the directions, Fagan backed his car up, accidentally rolling it onto the foot of the officer. When the officer yelled at him to move his car off his foot, he cursed back at him, told him to wait, and refused to move, which was an act of defiance. At trial, Fagan was convicted of "Assaulting a constable in execution of his duties". Fagan appealed on the grounds that there can be no offence in omitting to ac ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Causation (law)
Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the ''actus reus'' (an action) from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with ''mens rea'' (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses. Background concepts Legal systems more or less try to uphold the notions of fairness and justice. If a state is going to penalize a person or require that person pay compensation to another for losses incurred, liability is imposed according to the idea that those who injure others should take responsibility for their actions. Although some parts of any legal system will have qualities of strict liability, in which the ''mens rea'' is immaterial to the result and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Recklessness (law)
In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness. ''Mens rea'' and ''actus reus'' To commit a criminal offence of ''ordinary'' liability (as opposed to strict liability) the prosecution must show both the ''actus reus'' (guilty act) and ''mens rea'' (guilty mind). A person cannot be guilty of an offence for his actions alone; there must also be the requisite intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time. In the case of negligence, however, the ''mens rea'' is implied. Criminal law recognizes recklessness as one of four main classes of mental state constituting '' mens rea'' elements to establish liability, namely: *Intention: intending the action; foreseeing the result; desiring ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mens Rea
In criminal law, (; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action (or lack of action) would cause a crime to be committed. It is considered a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase ,1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.1(a) (3d ed.) i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law.". . . a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense." Model Penal Code § 2.02(1) Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 127 Moreover, when a person intends a harm, but as a result of bad aim or other cause the intent is transferred from an intended victim to an unintended victim, the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Crime
In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority. The term ''crime'' does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,Farmer, Lindsay: "Crime, definitions of", in Cane and Conoghan (editors), '' The New Oxford Companion to Law'', Oxford University Press, 2008 (), p. 263Google Books). though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes. The most popular view is that crime is a category created by law; in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law. One proposed definition is that a crime or offence (or criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some individual but also to a community, society, or the state ("a public wrong"). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. The notion that acts such as murder, rape, and theft are to be prohibited exists worldwide. What precisely is a criminal offence is defined by the criminal law o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Strict Liability In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Under the strict liability law, if the defendant possesses anything that is inherently dangerous, as specified under the "ultrahazardous" definition, the defendant is then strictly liable for any damages caused by such possession, no matter how careful the defendant is safeguarding them. In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals. Other than activities specified above (like ownership of wild animals, etc), US courts have historically considered the following activities as "ultrahazardous": # storing flammable liquids in quantity in an urban area # pile driving # bla ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] |
