Actus reus: Perbezaan antara semakan

 

 

The terms ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' are derived from the principle stated by [[Edward Coke]], namely, ''actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'',^{[[actus reus#References|1]]} which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty", i.e., the general test is one that requires proof of fault, [[culpability]] or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind. In this respect, the role of [[automatism (law)|automatism]] is highly relevant in providing a positive explanation of the need to demonstrate the voluntariness of the behaviour for it to found liability. Once the ''actus reus'' has been established in a conventional offence, there must be a [[concurrence]] of both ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' (and in the United States, for some crimes, an attendant circumstance) to justify a [[conviction (law)|conviction]].

 

 

For both common law and statutory offences, establishing the detailed list of elements necessary to constitute the offence and their scope is a matter of interpretation which may require the courts to review and revise [[precedent]]s to ensure that the current interpretations match the current needs. For example, if an offence uses a verb such as "inflict" or "enter", it is for the courts to lay down the factors by which to distinguish the forms of action that might satisfy the requirement. [[Burglary]] requires "entry as a trespasser" so if the accused cut a hole in a window and introduced a fishing rod into the room to catch jewellery, would this be an entry? Equally, if a surgeon performs a life-saving operation knowing that the accused did not consent, did he or she inflict injury by cutting open the patient as victim with a knife? At times, these decisions will have profound moral and practical implications for a [[society]], with the rulings of [[judge]]s and the findings of [[jury|juries]] reflecting prevailing attitudes on issues as controversial as [[euthanasia]] and [[assisted suicide]], sexual relationships, and the various forms of business activities that should or should not be crimes. The problem is that, in effect, the courts may retrospectively criminalise behaviour. If there are justifications for this outcome, they follow the argument that a person skating on thin ice can hardly complain if he or she falls through. It is the function of the courts to act to protect the rights of victims and the needs of society at large, and if this means that courts have an inherent jurisdiction to create new crimes by reinterpreting the old, that is probably a price worth paying so long as the power is used sparingly.

{{EngCrimLaw}}