LAW1114 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Regulatory Offence, All England Law Reports, Crimes Act 1958
TOPIC&4:&ELEMENTS&OF&A&CRIME&
Fault/mental*elements:*(‘Mens*Rea’)*
ESTABLISHING+THE+MENTAL+ELEMENT+
Waller & Williams [1.35]: Evidence of the mental element
• The mental element is attributed based on observations on the conduct of the accused (e.g. a person who
fires a pistol at point blank range clearly intends to kill the target)
Waller & Williams [1.36]: Subjective and objective standards
• Criminal responsibility: The assumption that, as subjects of the criminal law, all individuals have certain
cognitive, moral and volitional capacities.
• Criminal liability: Outcome of the trial that the accused has or has not committed the AR with the
requisite MR
• ‘Subjective’ standard: Involves asking what was the actual mental state of the accused (e.g. the accused’s
wishes and intentions relating to the act)
• ‘Objective’ standard: Involves asking what would have been the supposed mental state of a hypothetical
‘reasonable person’ behaving in the way in which the accused behaved
o Allows consistent application of the criminal from case to case
INTENTION+
Waller & Williams [1.58]: Subjective and objective standards
• Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: Includes no reference to motive
o Motive may be taken into account in fixing sentence (e.g. defences)
o Euthanasia is regarded as murder in Australia despite the benevolent motive of the murderer
Waller & Williams [1.32]: Strict liability
o Strict ‘Regulatory offences’ that provide an example of one of the ways un which the law has shaped
our perceptions of moral and immoral behaviour
o Lacks moral blameworthiness
Concurrence/Contemporaneity*
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
[1968] 3 All ER 422
• Parties: Fagan (appellant); R (respondent)
• Jurisdiction: Queen’s Bench Divisional Court
• Material facts:
o The appellant drove to the kerbside and parked as the victim had instructed, but stopped too far for
the victim’s liking
o The victim indicated the precise spot he wanted the appellant to park and the appellant drove forward
and parked on the victim’s foot
o The victim told the appellant to get off his foot, but the appellant initially did not act as per the
request
o After the victim’s protests, the appellant reluctantly drives off the victim’s foot
o The appellant was convicted for assault at first instance, and his appeal to the Middlesex Quarter
Session was dismissed
• Legal issue: Whether the initial act of mounting the car on the victim’s foot with no MR can constitute an
assault, and whether the appellant’s omission of an act can satisfy the AR requirement
• Held (findings): Appeal was dismissed
