Learning Outcomes
This article explains the fundamental principle that, for criminal liability to arise, the defendant’s wrongful act (actus reus) and guilty mind (mens rea) must occur at the same time. You will learn about the general rule of contemporaneity and the key exceptions developed by the courts: the continuing act doctrine and the single transaction principle. Understanding these concepts is essential for analysing criminal liability in SQE1 assessments.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you are required to understand the core principles of criminal liability relating to the timing of actus reus and mens rea. Ensure your revision covers:
- The general requirement that the actus reus and mens rea must occur at the same time (contemporaneity).
- The application and effect of the continuing act doctrine as an exception.
- The application and effect of the single transaction principle as an exception.
- Distinguishing between these principles and applying them to factual scenarios to determine criminal liability.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
For criminal liability, the general rule is that the actus reus and mens rea must:
- Occur within 24 hours of each other.
- Be proven on the balance of probabilities.
- Coincide in time.
- Be part of a single transaction.
-
A drives onto B's foot accidentally but then deliberately refuses to move the car when asked. At which point might liability for battery arise under the continuing act doctrine?
- The moment the car first makes contact.
- When A forms the intention not to move while the car is still on the foot.
- Only if A intended to drive onto the foot initially.
- After the car has been moved off the foot.
-
Which legal principle allows a sequence of connected actions leading to a prohibited result to be treated as one event for establishing liability?
- The contemporaneity rule.
- The continuing act doctrine.
- The single transaction principle.
- Factual causation.
Introduction
A fundamental element of criminal liability is the principle that the defendant must possess the required guilty mind (mens rea) at the precise moment they commit the wrongful act (actus reus). This is often referred to as the principle of contemporaneity or coincidence. If the defendant forms the intention to commit a crime but performs the act accidentally later, or performs the act and only later forms the guilty intention, the general rule dictates that no offence has been committed because the two elements did not coincide. However, to prevent absurdity and injustice, the courts have established exceptions to this rule, which are important for understanding criminal liability in practice.
Key Term: actus reus
The external elements of an offence, encompassing the defendant's conduct, any relevant circumstances, and sometimes the consequences of that conduct.Key Term: mens rea
The mental element or 'guilty mind' required for a particular offence, such as intention or recklessness.Key Term: coincidence principle
The general requirement in criminal law that the actus reus and the mens rea must occur simultaneously for liability to be established. Also known as the contemporaneity principle.
The General Rule: Contemporaneity Required
The default position is that the prosecution must prove the defendant had the required mens rea at the same time the actus reus was committed. If the mental element is formed before the physical act occurs, or after the physical act is completed, the elements do not coincide, and liability usually does not arise.
Worked Example 1.1
Ahmed decides he wants to damage his neighbour's prize-winning roses. He walks over to the neighbour's garden intending to cut the stems but loses his nerve and walks away. Later that evening, while practising football kicks in his own garden, he accidentally kicks the ball over the fence, flattening the same roses. Is Ahmed liable for criminal damage?
Answer: No. Although Ahmed had the mens rea (intention to damage property) earlier, he did not commit the actus reus (damaging the property) at that time. When he later committed the actus reus, it was accidental; he lacked the required mens rea at that moment. The actus reus and mens rea did not coincide.
Exceptions to the General Rule
The courts have recognised that a strict application of the contemporaneity principle can lead to results that defy common sense, particularly where a defendant clearly intended harm and achieved it through a series of acts. Two key exceptions have been developed: the continuing act doctrine and the single transaction principle.
The Continuing Act Doctrine
Some acts are not instantaneous but continue over time. If the actus reus can be regarded as a continuing act, it is sufficient if the defendant forms the mens rea at any point while that act is still ongoing. Liability arises because the mens rea eventually coincides with the continuing actus reus.
Key Term: continuing act doctrine
An exception to the contemporaneity rule where the actus reus is ongoing, allowing liability if the mens rea is formed at any point during its continuance.
The classic illustration involves a battery where force is applied accidentally but maintained deliberately.
Worked Example 1.2
Fatima is parking her car and accidentally stops with her front wheel resting on Police Constable Jones's foot. PC Jones shouts in pain and tells her to move the car. Fatima, annoyed at being told what to do, deliberately switches off the engine and refuses to move the car for a minute before driving off. Is Fatima liable for battery?
Answer: Yes. The actus reus of battery (applying unlawful force) began when the car made contact with the foot. Although accidental initially (no mens rea), the actus reus continued for as long as the car remained on the foot. When Fatima deliberately refused to move the car, she formed the required mens rea (intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force). As the mens rea coincided with the continuing actus reus, she is liable for battery.
The Single Transaction Principle
Where the actus reus involves a result (like death or injury) that is brought about by a series of connected acts, the courts may treat the entire sequence as one 'single transaction'. If the defendant possessed the required mens rea at any point during that sequence of acts, the coincidence requirement is satisfied, even if the mens rea was not present at the exact moment the final act causing the result occurred.
Key Term: transaction principle
An exception to the contemporaneity rule allowing a series of connected acts leading to the actus reus to be treated as a single event, meaning mens rea at any point during the sequence is sufficient for liability.
This principle is often applied in homicide cases where the defendant attacks the victim intending to kill, believes they have succeeded, and then performs another act to dispose of the body, which is the actual cause of death.
Worked Example 1.3
David attacks Chen with a heavy object, intending to kill him. Believing Chen is dead, David pushes the body over a cliff to hide it. Medical evidence later shows Chen survived the initial attack but died from exposure after being pushed over the cliff. Is David liable for murder?
Answer: Yes. The initial attack and the act of pushing Chen over the cliff are treated as part of a single transaction. David had the mens rea for murder (intention to kill) during the initial attack. This mens rea is superimposed onto the continuing series of acts that ultimately caused Chen's death. Therefore, the actus reus and mens rea coincide within the single transaction.
Exam Warning
Be careful to distinguish between the continuing act doctrine and the single transaction principle. The continuing act applies where the actus reus itself is ongoing (like the car remaining on the foot). The single transaction principle applies where a series of distinct acts are linked together to achieve the final result. Applying the wrong principle could lead to an incorrect conclusion about liability.
Revision Tip
When faced with a scenario where AR and MR appear separated in time, always ask:
- Could the actus reus be considered a continuing act? (If yes, apply Fagan principle).
- Could the sequence of events be viewed as one single transaction? (If yes, apply Thabo Meli principle). Only if neither exception applies should you conclude there is no liability due to lack of coincidence.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- The general rule in criminal law is that the actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time (contemporaneity).
- If the defendant lacks mens rea at the time of the actus reus, or vice versa, there is generally no criminal liability.
- The continuing act doctrine is an exception where the actus reus continues over time, allowing mens rea formed during that time to coincide.
- The single transaction principle is an exception where a series of connected acts leading to the actus reus can be treated as one event, allowing mens rea formed at any point during the sequence to suffice.
- These exceptions ensure defendants cannot escape liability for results closely connected to their culpable state of mind simply because the mental and physical elements were not perfectly simultaneous.
Key Terms and Concepts
- actus reus
- mens rea
- coincidence principle
- continuing act doctrine
- transaction principle
