Elements of Proof in the UK

In many legal systems it is an important principle that a person cannot be considered guilty of a crime until the state proves he committed it. The suspect himself need not prove anything, although he will of course help himself if he can show evidence of his innocence. The state must prove his guilt according to high standards and there are elements that must be proved. In codified systems, the elements are usually recorded in statutes; others, known as “common law crimes”, are still described mostly in case law.

There are usually two important elements to a crime: (1) the criminal act itself; (2) the criminal state of mind of the person when he committed the act. In Anglo-American law these are known by the Latin terms of (1) Actus Reus and (2) Mens Rea. A physical element is known as the actus reus and a mental element is known as mens rea.

Before a person can be convicted of a crime it is necessary for the prosecution to prove both elements, i.e.:

(a) that a certain event or state of affairs which is forbidden by the criminal law has been caused by D’s (Defendant) conduct; and

(b) that D’s conduct was accompanied by the necessary mens rea to establish the offense.

Both the conduct and the mental element differ from crime to crime and can be ascertained only by studying the definition of the particular crime. It is quite clear that the burden of proving these essential elements of any offense rests upon the prosecution who must prove the existence of both elements beyond reasonable doubt.

So, actus reus may be defined as conduct that causes an event prevented by the policy of the criminal law. Actus reus may consist of a positive act or of an omission to act. However, an omission to act is sufficient only when it constitutes a breach of a duty to act imposed by law.

Causation

A person will not be held criminally liable unless his conduct can fairly be regarded as having caused that event prevented by the policy of criminal law. This gives rise to the very difficult problem of causation. While there are no scientific principles on this subject, judges are very much guided by their sense of fairness in the individual case.

Mens Rea

The mens rea is the Latin term for “guilty mind” used in the criminal law. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that “an act does not make a man guilty unless his mind is guilty”. Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of means rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged.

There are three general classes of mens rea (the words used may vary from one state to another and from one definition to another) but the substance is: 1. intention; 2. recklessness sometimes termed willful blindness which may have a different interpretation in the United States; or 3. criminal negligence.

An act or an omission to act does not of itself constitute a crime at common law: it must be accompanied by a particular mental state. In this connection three mental elements are considered, which may designate voluntas, foresight and specific intent.

Voluntas means that the accused must have acted voluntarily in the sense that he was not at the time subject to certain forms of duress. And a person will not be held responsible for actions over which he had no conscious control, as with the actions of a sleepwalker or the reflex action of a person who is suddenly attacked by a swarm of bees.

Foresight. A person will not be held responsible for an occurrence unless he foresaw that his act would or might cause the event. The requirement of foresight may be satisfied by intention or by recklessness. Intention indicates the state of mind of a person who foresees a consequence of his conduct and desires to produce it. Recklessness indicates the state of mind of a person who foresees that his conduct will probably have a given consequence, but does not desire to produce it.

By specific intent is meant some intention in addition to that which is immediately involved in the commission of the act.

Exercise 4.17. Find the words with the similar meaning among the following:

A B

innocence to charge

respondent intention

mens rea guilt

accident liability

breach violation

to establish guiltlessness

criminal condition

purpose proof

mental not be allowed

prevision psychical

be forbidden to constitute

to accuse defendant

state foresight

responsible offensive

evidence occurrence

Exercise 4.18. Give the Russian equivalents to the following word combinations.

· the suspect

· to prove somebody’s guilt

· to be recorded in statutes

· state of mind

· to be ascertained by studying

· to cause an event

· to be held criminally liable

· guilty mind

· foresight

· recklessness

Exercise 4.19. Finish the sentences using the words in brackets.

1. There is not enough (proofs / evidence /exhibits) to start criminal proceedings against him.

2. The book examines the (reasons / motives / causes) of criminal behaviour.

3. Walker was (convicted / accused / punished) of a similar offence in 2009.

4. She had (made / exercised / committed) no offence under military law.

5. The country is drifting into a (condition / state / position) of chaos.

6. He’s been charged with possession a firearm with (purpose / resolution / intent) to endanger life.

7. The use of mobile phones in the library is strictly (forbidden / prohibited / banned).

8. What was the (illness / mental / health) state of the defendant at the time of the crime?

Exercise 4.20. Give English equivalents to the following words and expressions.

· невиновность

· бремя доказывания

· преступное действие

· поведения подсудимого

· установить преступление

· вне всякого сомнения

· ясно выраженное действие

· нарушение обязанности

· являться причиной события

· научные положения

· чувство справедливости

· последствия поведения

Exercise 4.21. Match each word on the left with the correct definition on the right. Consult the dictionary when necessary.

a) omission

b) foresight

c) intent

d) fairness

e) liable

f) state of affairs

g) duress

h) conscious

1. force or threats that make someone do something they do not want to do;

2. something that has not been included, either deliberately or because someone forgot;

3. the situation that a person, place, or process is in at a particular time;

4. behaviour that is just and reasonable;

5. legally responsible for causing damage of injury, so a person has to pay something or to be punished;

6. done deliberately by someone who knows what the effect will be;

7. the good judgement to think and plan before an event, so that you are prepared for whatever may happen;

8. the intention to commit a crime or an offence;

Exercise 4.22. Explain the meanings of the following words and expressions.

ü mens rea

ü actus reus

ü voluntas

ü foresight

ü specific intent

ü causation

Exercise 4.23. Read the text “Defenses” and complete the following tasks.

a) Say what the main idea of each paragraph is.

b) Translate the Russian words in the text from Russian into English.

Choose from: general principle; insanity; excuse; should not be harsh; for injuring someone; under the influence; was to protect; the defense of duress; specific circumstances; careful proof; avoid guilt; limited sets;

Defenses

1 A defendant may избежать вины if he can show he has a defence – a reason the court should оправдать his act. Different systems of law recognize different and usually ограниченный набор of defenses. For example, English law sometimes allows защита принуждения – being forced to commit a crime because of threats. Duress may be used as a defense for a secondary party (helping the murderer).

2 Another defense is that of умопомешательства. In most country a person cannot be found guilty of a crime if in a doctor’s opinion he cannot have been responsible for his actions because of mental illness. But this defense requires тщательного доказательства. If it is proven the defendant will not be sent to a prison, but instead to a mental hospital.

3 It might be argued that a person is not responsible for his actions if he is intoxicated – drunk or под воздействием of drugs. In fact, an intoxicated person may not even know what he is doing. However, in Britain and many other countries, there is a общепринятое положение that people who purposely get themselves intoxicated must be responsible for their acts. Consequently, intoxication is not a defence.

4 Nearly every system of law recognized the defense of self-defense. In England law, a defendant can avoid guilt за причинение вреда кому-либо if he can convince the court that the force he used должна была защитить himself.

5 The concept of defense should not be confused with that of mitigation – reasons your punishment не должно быть суровым. If a person has a defense, the court finds him not guilty. It is only after being found guilty that a defendant may try to mitigate his crimes by explaining the особенные обстоятельства at the time of the crime.

с) Choose the most suitable heading from the list A-F for each paragraph (1-5) of the text. There is one extra heading which you do not need to use.

A. Self-protection.

B. The defense for mentally ill persons.

C. Things explaining the commission of a crime.

D. Some reasons for avoiding punishment.

E. One of the general principles in Britain.

F. Harsh punishment.

Exercise 4.24. Translate into English using your active vocabulary.

Неправомерные действия определяются как наказания во многих странах. Хотя, некоторые действия, которые считаются преступными в одной стране, не являются таковыми в другой. Тем не менее, правоведы установили несколько основных признаков любого преступления. Во-первых, преступление – это противоправное действие, хотя и совершаемое иногда против какого-либо отдельного лица, направлено против общества в целом. Так как общество пытается защитить себя от преступных действий, второй характеристикой является то, что преступление наказуемо государством. С этой целью существует ряд органов, которые осуществляют судебное преследование и наказание преступника.

Однако, чтобы осудить виновного человека, необходимо доказать наличие трех основных элементов преступления – факт совершения противоправного действия, запрещенного законом; нарушение обязанности, налагаемой правом; наличие преступного умысла. Однако, не все преступления совершаются с преступным умыслом. Примером являются дорожно-транспортные происшествия.

Кроме того, существенным фактором при вынесении наказания является возраст преступника. Во многих странах возраст уголовной ответственности, закрепленный законом, колеблется от 16 до 19 лет. Таким образом, незнание закона не освобождает от наказания за нарушение его.

Вина и совершения виновного деяния доказываются в суде органами, ведущими процесс от имени государства. Существует основное положение в праве, что человек не может быть признан виновным до тех пор, пока его вина не доказана. Чтобы доказать виновность лица, необходимо учитывать его психическое состояние, когда преступление совершалось. Добровольность совершения тех или иных действий, предвидение последствий своих действий, а также наличие особенного умысла рассматриваются как основные психические элементы, связанные с совершением преступления.

Так как, и преступное поведение, и психические элементы различаются от преступления к преступлению, то они определяются путем рассмотрения каждого определенного преступления. И именно обвинение должно доказать существование этих элементов вне всякого сомнения.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16