Contemporaneity Rule Essay Example for Free

Contemporaneity Rule Essay It is a principle of English law that the actus reus and mens rea must coincide. That is they must happen at the same time. This is sometimes referred to as the contemporaneity rule or the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea. However, the courts often apply a flexible approach in holding that the actus reus is a continuing act. Thabo-Meli v R [1954] 1 WLR 228 Privy Council The four appellants were convicted of murder. They had planned to kill a man and then make it look like an accident. They took him to a hut and beat him over the head. Believing that he was dead, they then took his body to a cliff and threw it off. Medical evidence showed that the deceased died from exposure of being left at the bottom of the cliff and not from the blow to the head. They appealed against their convictions on the grounds that the actus reus and mens rea of the crime did not coincide. That is to say when they formed the intention to kill, there was no actus reus as the man was still alive. When they threw him off the cliff, there was no mens rea as they can intend to kill someone they believed was already dead. Held:Convictions upheld. The act of beating him and throwing him off the cliff was one continuing act. Lord Reid: It appears to their Lordships impossible to divide up what was really one transaction in this way. There is no doubt that the accused set out to do all these acts in order to achieve their plan and as parts of their plan; and it is much too refined a ground of judgment to say that, because they were under a misapprehension at one stage and thought that their guilty purpose and been achieved before in fact it was achieved, therefore they are to escape the penalties of the law. Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439 A policeman was directing the defendant to park his car. The defendant accidentally drove onto the policemans foot. The policeman shouted at him to get off. The defendant refused to move. The defendant argued at the time of the actus reus, the driving onto the foot, he lacked the mens rea of any offence since it was purely accidental. When he formed the mens rea, he lacked the actus reus as he did nothing. Held:The driving on to the foot and remaining there was part of a continuing act. R v Hale [1978] 68 Cr App R 415 The two defendants broke into a womans home. One went upstairs and took some jewellery from her bedroom. After taking the jewellery the two of them tied her up. They were convicted of robbery and appealed on the grounds that the force came after they had appropriate the jewellery and thus did not come within the requirement of being immediately before or at the time of stealing. Held:Convictions upheld. The appropriation of the jewellery was a continuing act. Eveleigh LJ: To say the conduct is over and done with as soon as he laid hands on the property is contrary to common-sense and to the natural meaning of the words. The act of appropriation does not cease. It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the appropriation has finished. The Law of Robbery The offence of robbery is contained in s.8 of the Theft Act 1968. In criminal law, robbery is a form of aggravated theft, in that it involves the offence of theft plus force or threat of force on a person. The maximum sentence for robbery is life imprisonment. Under s.8 of the Theft Act 1968 a person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The principle of all the cases above will be : Actus reus and men rea must be coincide in the point of time for the accused to be guilty