What Does Actus Reus Mean?

Liability For Action and Inaction in English Criminal Law

Mar 15, 2010
Zoe Kirk-Robinson

Actus Reus Causes Criminal Liability for Actions - [puamelia]

Actus reus is the "guilty act" portion of a crime. It gives rise to criminal liability for undertaking prohibited actions, or failing to act where a duty to do so exists.

The term actus reus, the Latin term for a “guilty act”, is one of the two necessary elements for prosecution of most crimes in English law; the other being mens rea. As a general rule, a person cannot be found guilty of a crime unless they have committed the necessary actus reus; although there are some exceptions to this.

Identifying the Actus Reus

In the majority of cases, the actus reus of a crime is easy to identify. When a crime is created, either by statute or the common law, details of the action a person must undertake to commit that crime will be given.

For example, the section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines the crime of theft as the dishonest appropriation of “property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it...”. The actus reus of theft is therefore the appropriation of goods belonging to another.

Is Actus Reus the Most Essential Element of a Crime?

The definition of theft in the 1968 Act brings up the problem that the guilty act is not always the most important aspect of the crime. Here, it is not the appropriation of property that is necessarily the problem, but the dishonesty of the act.

Unless dishonesty can be proved, appropriation of goods belonging to another will not give rise to criminal liability under the Theft Act 1968. This is intentional however, as to remove the dishonesty aspect could lead to prosecution for borrowing a friend's car with their permission, amongst other things.

Strict Liability Law

Nevertheless, there are circumstances where actions alone may give rise to criminal liability. These strict liability crimes are defined by the fact that a person is guilty simply for engaging in the prohibited act, regardless of their intent when doing so.

Speeding and several other driving offences are examples of specific intent crimes, while duress, amongst other things, can be a defence in specific circumstances.

Can a Person be Liable for Inaction?

Although it will generally deal with specific actions, criminal liability may arise from a person's inaction where to fail to do something would be against the public interest. Where inaction can be sufficient to establish the actus reus of a crime, it is usually in cases where a person has a duty imposed on them to act and yet does not.

For example, in criminal law cases such as Tuck v. Robson [1970] and R v. Russell and Russell (1987), the courts ruled that a person with a right or duty to act who remains silent or fails to intervene at the scene of a crime can be guilty of encouragement. This then leaves them open to prosecution under section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

Actus Reus is one of the major factors in criminal law that must be proven for a defendant to be found guilty. Although it is usually qualified by a requirement to prove intent or the need for specific circumstances associated with the guilty act in question, it is the nevertheless the only requirement for criminal liability that exists in all crimes.

References:

Harris P., An Introduction to Law (Seventh Edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 308-10
Martin E.A. (Ed.), A Dictionary of Law (Fifth Edition), Oxford University Press, Oxford

VRS101

Zoe Kirk-Robinson - Zoë Kirk-Robinson is a freelance writer/artist specialising in legal writing, internet technology and creative writing. She holds a ...