Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439

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

1. 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.
2. Whether Fagan’s conduct constituted a continuing act rather than a mere omission.
3. 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.