Facts
- Mr. Fagan was instructed by a police officer to park his car closer to the curb.
- While complying, Fagan accidentally drove onto the police officer’s foot.
- Initially, Fagan may have been unaware of the contact.
- After being informed by the officer, Fagan refused to move the car, thus prolonging the pressure on the officer’s foot.
- The refusal to remove the car after awareness formed the basis of the assault charge.
Issues
- Whether the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) can coincide for assault when intent forms after the initial act, as part of a continuing act.
- Whether Fagan’s conduct constituted a continuing act rather than a mere omission.
- Whether the later-formed mens rea during an ongoing act satisfied the requirements for criminal liability.
Decision
- The court held that Fagan’s actions constituted a continuing act rather than a mere omission.
- It was determined that the actus reus began when Fagan drove onto the officer’s foot and continued while the car remained there.
- Mens rea was formed when Fagan became aware of the situation and intentionally refused to remove the car.
- The concurrence of actus reus and mens rea was satisfied by the existence of a continuing act, legitimizing the assault conviction.
Legal Principles
- The continuing act doctrine allows actus reus to persist over a period, enabling mens rea to arise during the ongoing act rather than at its inception.
- A continuing act is distinguished from an omission; liability arises only where a positive act is being continued deliberately.
- Mens rea can be established at any point while the actus reus persists in an unbroken chain.
- The case clarified that criminal liability for assault does not require simultaneity between actus reus and mens rea at the precise initial moment if a continuing act is present.
Conclusion
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner clarified that criminal liability can be established where mens rea develops during a continuing act, so long as the actus reus persists, thereby confirming the validity of the continuing act doctrine in assessing concurrence of the guilty act and mind in criminal law.
