Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contemporaneity and moral congruence:Actus reus andmens rea reconsidered

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. See A.R. White, “The Identity and Time of the Actus Reus”,Criminal Law Review (1977), 149; G. Williams,Textbook of Criminal Law, Stevens & Co., 1983, 16.

  2. J.C. Smith & B. Hogan,Criminal Law Butterworths, 7th ed., 1992, 29.

  3. G.R. Sullivan, “Cause and the Contemporaneity ofActus Reus andMens Rea”,Cambridge Law Journal 52 (1992), 487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. See G. Marston, “Contemporaneity of Act and Intention in Crime”,Law Quarterly Review 86 (1970), 208, at 211–214.

    Google Scholar 

  5. ConsiderRv.Jakeman (1983) 76 Cr.App.R. 223.

  6. Smith & Hogan,supra n.2,Criminal Law Butterworths, 7th ed., 1992, at 30, 36–37.

  7. Consider also the simpler hypothetical of an assailant who assaults another, who survives for some months before dying of the injury—the mental element of the assailant at the moment of his victim's death is not raised in the trial.

  8. See for instanceHales v.Petit (1563) 1 Plowden 253 at 256. Cf.R v.Clarke [1991] Crim.L.R. 383.

  9. Marston,, at 232–237.

    Google Scholar 

  10. It is worth noting that the relationship discussed under this heading is not one relationship but three. Given rules two and four discussed above, however, they may be compressed into the single relationship discussed in the text.

  11. , at 489.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Le. formed before initiation of theactus reus.

  13. Le. formed after initiation of theactus reus.

  14. Rv.Miller [1983] 2 A.C. 161.

  15. See, for instance,, at 489.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Emphasis added.

  17. Rv.Miller [1983] 2 A.C. 161per Lord Diplock, emphasis added. Later in the judgement he also refers to liability if “at the moment of awareness, it lies within his power to take steps, either himself or by calling for the assitance of the fire brigade if this be necessary, to prevent or minimise the damage to the property at risk”.

  18. There is no reason why the principles in these homicide cases should not apply more generally, if appropriate facts arose. See R. Card,Cross, Jones & Card's Introduction to Criminal Law, Butterworths, 1988, §11.27.

  19. Thabo Meli and Ors v.R [1954] 1 All E.R. 373.

  20. Cf. Smith & Hogan,supra n.2,Criminal Law Butterworths, 7th ed., 1992, at 77 n.7.

  21. [1954] 1 All E.R. 374c,per Lord Reid.

  22. Rv.Moore and Dorn [1975] Crim.L.R.229.

  23. See G. Williams,supra n.1,Textbook of Criminal Law, Stevens & Co., 1983 at 255–56. This sort of specific rule can be found in other areas of criminal law. Consider, for example,R v.West (1848) 2 Cox C.C. 500.

  24. Rv.Church (1965) 39 Cr.App.R. 206. SeeSv.Masilela 1968 (2) S.A. 558.

  25. 21 Jac. 1 c.27.

  26. Rv.LeBrun (1992) 94 Cr.App.R. 101.

  27. These appear to be the facts accepted by the courts.

  28. , 491.

    Google Scholar 

  29. European Convention on Human Rights article 7.

  30. See H. Fenwick,Civil Liberties, Cavendish Press, 1994, 51–52, for an introduction to this article.

  31. See T.R.S. Allan, “Legislative Supremacy and the Rule of Law”,Cambridge Law Journal (1985), 11.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Central Lancashire, Lancashire, UK

    Peter W. Edge Ll.B. (Lancaster), Ph.D. (Cantab.) (Senior Lecturer in Law)

Authors
  1. Peter W. Edge Ll.B. (Lancaster), Ph.D. (Cantab.)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Many thanks to Professor Richard Taylor, Forbes Professor of English Law at the University of Central Lancashire, for his comments on an earlier of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Edge, P.W. Contemporaneity and moral congruence:Actus reus andmens rea reconsidered. Liverpool Law Rev 17, 83–95 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02449955

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02449955

Keywords

Search

Navigation