Actus reus Definition

GLOSSARY

What does Actus reus mean?

All the elements of a criminal offence except the accused's mental element.

The term comes from a mistranslation of the Latin Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, which properly translated means “an act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind be also guilty”. It is used to refer to the act, conduct, omission or state of affairs which the offence in question prohibits. The mental and other elements of a criminal offence can, however, on occasions be difficult to distinguish, eg “possessing”, “keeping”, permitting”. These terms import both physical and mental elements.

View the related practice notes about Actus reus

Property case tracker—2023 [Archived]

Property case tracker—2023 [Archived] The Property case tracker is a list of key judgments from 2023 which we consider relevant to property lawyers. Cases are listed in reverse chronological order. The tracker employs the following definitions: • AST: assured shorthold tenancy; • CVA: company voluntary arrangement; • FTT: First-tier Tribunal; • HMO: house in multiple occupation; • LPA: local planning authority; • NPPF: National Planning Policy Framework; • RRO: rent repayment order; • RTM: right to manage; • TCC: Technology and Construction Court; • UT: Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber); • VTE: Valuation Tribunal for England See also the Property key future developments tracker, which tracks the progress and outcome of appeal cases, whereas this document provides a summary of all cases that we consider relevant to property lawyers. See further: • Property case tracker—2022 [Archived] • Property case tracker—2021 [Archived] • Property case tracker—2020 [Archived] December 2023 Case Judgment date Summary Clapham v Narga [2023] EWHC 3337 (Ch) 21 December 2023 Permission to appeal boundary decision The Chancery...

Collective redundancy—statutory information and consultation obligations

Collective redundancy—statutory information and consultation obligations Information and consultation is a vital part of any kind of dismissal and, if the employer wishes to minimise the risk of liability to pay compensation to affected employees, must play a significant role in any redundancy exercise. Where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees within any period of 90 days or less, it has statutory obligations to: • inform appropriate representatives (see Appropriate representatives and Information to be provided, below) • consult appropriate representatives (see Appropriate representatives and Collective consultation obligation, below) • notify the Secretary of State at the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) in advance (see Obligation to notify the Secretary of State (Form HR1), below) For information on what ‘employer’ means in this context, when the statutory consultation obligations are triggered and, in particular on whether the relevant number of employees should be calculated by reference to one establishment or across all of the employer's establishments, see Practice Note: Collective...

Discover our 18 Practice Notes on Actus reus

Is an offence under section 111 of the Water Industry Act 1991 a strict liability offence?

Is an offence under section 111 of the Water Industry Act 1991 a strict liability offence? Many of the common environmental offences impose strict liability on the actions of a defendant. When an offence does not require proof of a mental element, or where no fault element is required in relation to one element of the actus reus but where mens rea is required in relation to other aspects, it is an offence of strict liability. In order to secure a conviction for a strict liability offence the only thing which needs to be proven is the act or omission which forms part of the offence and there is no need to prove any negligence or fault on the part of the defendant. See Practice Note: Strict liability. The justifications for imposing strict liability for environmental crimes include: • it is in the public interest to do so • it acts as a deterrent so that those who have to comply with the law do not...

What is a cut-throat defence in criminal proceedings?

What is a cut-throat defence in criminal proceedings? When one defendant in a criminal trial seeks to advance a defence case to the effect that the perpetrator of a criminal act was their co-accused (ie blaming their co-accused), this is called cutting their co-accused’s throat, or a ‘cut throat defence’. It is most often relied on when there is clear evidence to place before the magistrates’ or jury that an offence has been committed and where there was an opportunity for two or more people to commit the offence. By advancing a defence that the other person was in fact the culpable party, the defendant is seeking to distance themselves from the offending and absolve themselves of responsibility for the crime itself, notwithstanding that they may accept a hand in some or all of the conduct forming the actus reus of the offence. Cut-throat defences are notoriously difficult to run successfully and often cause collateral damage to those who advance them. In practice, they require...

See the 2 Q&As about Actus reus

The improper use of public electronic communications network—Convention rights and privacy

Corporate Crime analysis: This appeal concerned the application of section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003) to private consensual messaging, namely offensive messages exchanged between serving police officers in a private WhatsApp group. This is the first time that the higher courts have been asked to consider section 127(1) in this context. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the messages exchanged between the officers were of a ‘grossly offensive’ nature within the meaning of section 127(1)(a), and that a reasonable person in society would find them to be so, applying the standards of an open, just, multiracial and multifaith society. Written by Eleanor Fox, barrister at 2 Hare Court.

Case analysis—defence of illegality fails in civil claim due to successful defence of insanity in criminal proceedings (Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The illegality defence/ex turpi causa did not apply where the claimant had been found not guilty of murder or manslaughter by reason of insanity. Written by Selena Plowden KC and Christopher Johnson who represent the claimant in this case, barristers at Guildhall Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers respectively.

Read the latest 19 News articles on Actus reus

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"While we began looking at ��Ӱ�� products primarily for cost saving, it quickly became more about customer service, ease of onboarding, ongoing training and breadth of resources available."

Co-Op

Access all documents on Actus reus

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

��Ӱ��

GLOSSARY