Examine the meaning and significance of ‘fault’ within Criminal Law.

Based on the Oxford Dictionary, a ‘fault’ is simply defined as “a responsibility for a mistake etc.”1.

Consequently, in the court of Criminal Justice, it can be said that being at fault- is the failure to take

reasonable care to avoid causing damage or loss2. In layman’s terms being at fault for a crime, is when the

defendant must display intent for committing the crime, therefore, making them liable, through key

elements including Actus Reus and Mens Rea3, which play a significant role in determining the

defendant’s verdict. However, there are other crucial factors which prove to be significant including Strict

Liability.

Firstly, the foundation of proving a victim to be at fault can be expressed via Actus Reus. Actus Reus

refers to the external element of the crime in which the prosecution will need to present clear evidence

which implicates the defendant's role in the following; conduct, circumstance and result. It can be stated

that Actus Reus is a detrimental factor as it can trigger the removal of legal liability from the defendant if

the evidence presented does not prove to be sufficient. This can be supported by the case “R V White

(1910)”4, where the defendant was exonerated of a murder charge, given that he had poisoned his mother

with the intent of murdering her. However, this charge was later repealed as evidence had found that the

victim had died of heart failure rather than poisoning, resulting in the defendant being acquitted of murder

and alternately convicted of attempted murder.

Additionally, associated alongside Actus Reus is Mens Rea, the Latin term meaning ‘guilty mind’.

Therefore in the context of fault, for the defendant to be determined to be guilty of their charges, they

must have some level of intention of committing a crime. Firstly direct intention is when the defendant’s

sole objective is to achieve a forbidden outcome, whilst oblique intention is when the defendant’s aim was

1
Oxford Dictionaries. 2013. “Fault.” In Oxford English Mini Dictionary, 667. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
2
Australian Government. 2019. “5.1 Fault elements.” Attorney-General's Department.
https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/commonwealth-criminal-code-guide-practitioners-draft/part-22
-elements-offence/division-5-fault-elements/51-fault-elements.
3
The Law Academy. 2021. “Actus Reus and Mens Rea.” Youtube. https://youtu.be/BnuU0mWmlK4.
4
LawTeacher. 2021. “Cases on Actus Reus.” LawTeacher.net.
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/actus-reus-cases.php?vref=1.
not the outcome yet was effectively promised. Finally, alongside intention is recklessness where the

defendant understands that there is a risk, yet still commits the action regardless (Harwood 2016)5.

Depending on the level of intent, that the defendant possesses will determine sentence length. The

significance of Mens Rea can be seen in the case of “R v Cunningham (1957)”6, in which the defendant

broke into a gas metre in an attempt to steal money but instead resulted in a gas leak within the property.

Although the defendant had no intention of causing a gas leak, he took a risk by stealing the money

nevertheless, exhibiting the act of recklessness.

Finally, whilst it can be said that both Actus Reus and Mens Rea are key elements in proving fault.

Therefore, displaying the effectiveness of both elements in the criminal court, as there have been several

precedents that have been overturned given the basis of these elements. Yet, the significance of fault may

be overruled by Strict Liability cases where the defendant may be charged without actus reus being

proven (no fault required), this is said to include highly illegal crimes such as; speeding, selling alcohol to

minors and driving without car insurance.

5
Harwood, Sarah. 2016. “What is mens rea?” youtube.com. https://youtu.be/CEsRGl6Aef0.
6
LawTeacher. 2021. “R v Cunningham - 1957.” LawTeacher.net.
http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-cunningham.php?vref=1.