Criminal liability dissertation

In law there exists a fundamental principle which is guaranteed by the constitution that every person is innocent until confirmed to be guilty by courts of law, in criminal regulation there are two principles of criminal responsibility which have being relied upon in order to determine the guilt or innocence with the accused person. Therefore the aim of this dissertation is to talk about the two principles of legislation for lawbreaker liability with reference to the Penal Code Take action, Chapter 80 Seven (87) of the Regulations of Zambia and Zambian decided cases.

In order to successfully do this, the essay will begin by generally talking about both the principles of law to get criminal legal responsibility which are the “Actus reus plus the “mens rea and in order to seriously discuss them, focus will be made for the Homicide offence of ‘murder’ with the use of relevant Zambian instances. The terms ‘Actus reus’ and ‘Mens rea’ happen to be derived from the Latin Saying; “Actus non facit reum mens stay rea which in turn mean that presently there cannot be such a thing as legal guilt where there is no moral guilt.

The discovered author Claire E Kulusika defines ‘Actus reus’ since “whatever action or omission or state of affairs as put down inside the definition of the particular crime billed in addition to the surrounding circumstances¦and the ‘mens rea’ since the state of brain or fault which is required in the definition of the offense in question

In order for a person to get criminally responsible it has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that such a person experienced committed the necessary guilty take action or ‘actus reus’ which can be the physical element and had the necessary state of mind or ‘mens rea’ although this is not always the case for instance a criminal offences do not require the ‘mens rea’ to get liability being established.

A few of the cases that do not effectively require institution of the ‘mens rea’ happen to be offences referred to as “offences of strict liability. In Patel’s Bazaar limited v The People4 it had been stated that proof of the ‘mens rea’ is not essential to establish a strict responsibility offence, this is a case in which the accused was convicted to get the stringent liability offence of selling unwholesome breads. Generally speaking in criminal regulation in order to establish criminal responsibility certain portions of the crime alleged to had been committed must be identified, the first being the perform prohibited or perhaps ‘actus reus’, secondly your mind or fault component which is essential when identifying the criminal offense in question often known as ‘mens rea’ and additionally proof of lack of a protection which might vitiate any of the twoprinciples of lawbreaker liability. As earlier alluded to, intended for the uses of this project focus will be put on the homicide offence of Murder in aiming to discuss the two of these principles of law of criminal responsibility.

To establish the ‘actus reus’ of homicide it has to be turned out that there is against the law killing of any person, the death following within a day and a year of the imposition of the perilous injury, this is noticeable in Section 200 of our Penal Code Act six which provides; Any person who of malice prepense causes the death of another person by an illegal act or perhaps omission is guilty of tough. In this section the ‘actus reus’ is definitely identified as causing death of another person by an illegal act or perhaps omission plus the ‘mens rea’ is the malice aforethought. In Chitenge sixth is v The People it had been held the fact that actus reus of murder is that there is a dead body, in this instance the appellant having had struggled with his good friend went to the friend’s home and set that on fire burning a person that was inside leading to the death of that person. The dead burnt human body sufficed as ‘actus reus’ despite the defendant not basically having had checked as to whether there was clearly a person in the house or perhaps not. Visiting the ‘mens rea’, the necessity is that the offender person will need to have malice forethought. The term malice aforethought is employed to describe the mens rea of tough and it simply means that the mens rea must not be met with an afterthought. In the case of Mbomena Moola v the people, the appellant was convicted of murder of his dad after he poisoned his maheu drink.

In his admission the appellant stated that he poisoned his dad so that this individual could die because he thought that he was the one who also bewitched his children. In cases like this the legal courts held that it was quiet obvious that the falsely accused had the necessary mens rea for homicide as he specifically intended upon causing death of his victim. With the facts succumbed the question in which the accused is definitely charged with murder in which the mens rea is that the charged must be plaisanterie aforethought and the actus reus being the death which is satisfactory in cases like this, it is worth noting that where offences complained of happened during participation in a sport, the accused cannot be held to be criminally responsible as in law it is thought that when participants to a sports game provide consent they actually so to every one of the risks of injury that may take place resulting from accidents which may take place throughout the sport including death.

Consequently applying both principles of law of criminal the liability to the presented facts it can be stated that thoughthe actus reus was present, that is the death of Mr Mudenda, Mr Chisolo lacked the required mens rea to be found guilty for tough and can as well not end up being convicted of manslaughter because the death or actus reus was as a result of a major accident in a sport of which approval by the individuals vitiates criminal liability. To conclude it can be explained that this dissertation has identified two principles of rules of lawbreaker liability the ‘actus reus’ and the ‘mens rea’. They have being reviewed that the ‘actus reus’ refers to whatever work or omission or situation as put down inside the definition of the actual crime billed in addition to the surrounding situations and an illustration was given inside the offence of murder. The ‘mens rea’ with reference to homicide was likewise discussed since the state of head or fault which is required in the definition of the crime in question and this criminal legal responsibility cannot be deduced if the offence complained of took place during the occurrence of a sport because consent vitiates it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EBOOKS

Kulusika S. At the, Criminal rules in Zambia; text, cases and elements: UNZA press. Lusaka. 06\ Sir Johnson J and Hogan M, Criminal rules; Cases and materials, sixth edition: Dublin & Edinburgh. Butterworth. 1996 CASES

Chitenge v the individuals (1996) ZR 37

Mbomena Moola v the people (2000) ZR 148 SC

STATUTES

The Penal Code Act, Part 87 from the laws of Zambia.

You might also be interested in the subsequent: criminal liability essay

1