CRIME & ELEMENTS OF

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
(MENS REA)

LAC3103
CRIMINAL LAW I
LECTURE

1
CMV CLARKSON, UNDERSTANDING
CRIMINAL LAW (1987),PGS 56-58
 Generally criminal liability is only imposed
upon a blameworthy actor whose conduct
has caused a forbidden harm.
 It is not enough that a person has simply
done the forbidden act or caused the
forbidden harm. He must have done so in
circumstances in which he can be blamed for
his conduct. Without such blame of fault he
is regarded as innocent.

2
SCOPE OF MENS REA
 Mens rea is the mental element required by
to constitute criminal liability.
 Mens rea can be looked upon as the decision
to chose to break the law by the doer.
 When a person acts with mens rea he is a
responsible agent who has chosen to break
the law, making him blameworthy and
therefore deserves a punishment.
 [Blame and punishment would be justified of
a person has chosen to commit a crime]

3
 However it must be noted that mens rea is
not limited to any single state of mind. The
are different degrees of mens rea:-
 It covers also those who act realizing that
there is a chance (no matter how small it
may be) of their conduct causing the
prohibited result.
 In some cases it could even extend to
persons who do not anticipate causing any
harm, but who really ought to have realized
the risks involved in their action.

4
MENS REA UNDER THE PENAL
CODE
 Under the Penal Code and other related local
legislations creating criminal liability, a specific
form of mens rea is required for an offence and
it is expressly worded the provisions.
 For instance:-
Section 142 makes it an offence if a person
“intentionally joins” an unlawfully assembly
Section 275 makes it an offence if a person
knowing any drugs or medical preparation to
have been adulterated..sells etc such drug.

5
Section 304A makes it an offence if a person causes
the death of any person by doing any rash or
negligent act
Section 378 the words intending to take dishonestly
any movable property.
Section 377 makes it an offence if a person
voluntarily has carnal intercourse with an animal.
Section 153 the words malignantly or wantonly are
used as the degree of mens rea to constitute the
offence.
 In short intention, knowledge, voluntariness, rash
and negligent and malice etc.as spelt out in the
various sections could tantamount to mens rea
for criminal liability to exist in satisfying the
mental element.
6
APPROACHES IN ATTRIBUTING
LIABILITY
 The pertinent rule in criminal law is that actus reus and
mens rea should coincide with each other to create
criminal liability.
 A person cannot be convicted of an offence if he
requires the relevant mens rea after the conduct on his
side has ceased.
 Fagan v MPC (1969) 1 QB 439 A when parking his car
accidentally drove onto a policeman’s foot. When the
policeman man asked A to remove his car, BUT A
declined. The defence argued actus reus and mens rea
did not coincide in the case.
 Held: The refusal to remove the car amounted to mens
rea and the actus reus had continued until the car was
driven off the foot of the policeman.
7
 Thabo Meli v R (1954) 1 All ER 373 The
appellants in accordance to a pre-arranged
plan lured the victim to a hut where they
gave him beer. When he was partially
intoxicated, they struck him over the head.
Believing him to be dead, they rolled his
body down a cliff to make his death look like
an accident. He died of exposure when lying
unconscious at the foot of the cliff.

8
 It was argued by the Appellants that 2 acts
had been carried out. First - the attack in
the hut where there was clear intent to kill
and Second – pushing the victim of the cliff
when there was no intent to kill as they
believed that he is already dead.
 It was maintained that the first act did not
cause the death and the second act which
caused the death was not accompanied with
mens rea. The Privy Council upheld the
conviction of murder.

9
 Church (1966) 1 QB 59 – Accused in a sudden
fight, the deceased unconcious. Believing her
to be dead, he threw her body into the river
where she drowned.
 Held: Accused was guilty of manslaughter as
he conduct constituted a series of act which
culminated the deceased’s death.

10
 Le Brun (1992) QB 61, the Court of Appeal held
that if a person unlawfully assaults another and
believing he has delivered the fatal blow,
attempt to conceal or dispose of the body, then
he will be guilty of murder if the blow was
struck with malice afterthought, even if the
immediate cause of death was from the
concealment. It was immaterial that there was
no preconceived plan.

 The court in this case directed the jury that

they could convict the accused with either
murder or manslaughter depending on the
intention in which the blow was inflicted.
11
MENS REA & MOTIVE
 EXAMINE:
 1. X intends to put poison into his wife’s
drink
 2. X intends to cause the wife’s death
 3. X intends to inherit the millions belonging
to the wife.
 Identify the motive in this situation.

12
 The general rule is that motives, good or bad are
irrelevant to his criminal liability.
 In Smith( 1960) 1 All ER 256, the accused was
charged with corruptly offering gift to a mayor. He
handed over an IOU to the mayor to induce the
mayor to sell a piece of land belonging to the
council to him. Accused did not actually intend to
go thru with the transaction. He only desires to
expose the corrupt habits by the local
administration.
 Held: Even though his motive was not corrupt, he
was guilty since he had offered the money with
that purpose.
13
 Intention must be distinguished from motive.
 Motive is secondary intention
 Eg: X may have strong motive to kill Y.
Unless actus reus and mens rea can be
proven, a conviction cannot be sustained
against X.
 End of lecture

14
ASSIGNMENT
 Question 1
Raising the defence of automatism under the
Malaysian Penal Code. An analysis.
(20 marks)
Question 2
The term “voluntary” is given an artificial
meaning for the purposes of the Penal Code, a
meaning equated to the English mens rea term
“wilfully”. Elaborate in context of English law and
the Penal Code.
(20 marks)

15
 Question 3
Discuss the application of strict liability in
Malaysia. Would you say the position is
similar to the position in England in terms of
its application. (20 marks)

16