Actus reus - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Actus reus

The Experts below are selected from a list of 1377 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Actus reus – Free Register to Access Experts & Abstracts

Manuel J. Ventura – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Aiding and Abetting and the International Criminal Court’s Bemba et al. Case: The icc Trial and Appeals Chamber Consider Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute
    International Criminal Law Review, 2020
    Co-Authors: Manuel J. Ventura

    Abstract:

    Abstract
    This article discusses the icc’s Bemba et al. Trial and Appeal Judgments concerning aiding and abetting under Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute. It analyses three issues that were addressed at trial and some of which were considered on appeal: (i) the Actus reus contribution threshold; (ii) encouragement or moral support and the principal perpetrators; and (iii) the mens rea of ‘purpose’. It concludes that the Bemba et al. Trial Judgment provided clarity on the mens rea under Article 25(3)(c), while the Bemba et al. Appeal Judgment settled the question of whether a principal perpetrator needs to be aware of the aider and abettor’s encouragement or moral support for it to have an effect on the crime. However, the Bemba et al. Appeal Judgment ignored the question of whether there is a minimum contribution threshold for the Actus reus of aiding and abetting, despite the issue being clearly raised.

  • Aiding and Abetting
    , 2018
    Co-Authors: Manuel J. Ventura

    Abstract:

    Aiding and abetting as a mode of liability in international criminal law generally refers to acts or omissions that assist, encourage or lend moral support to a crime and substantially contribute to its commission (Actus reus). Further, a person must act, or omit to act, with the knowledge that he or she assists, encourages or lends moral support to the crime (mens rea). While aiding and abetting has been applied to numerous factual scenarios over the years, it has, of late, been the source of significant controversy in international criminal law. As a result, it is perhaps one of the most scrutinised and debated modes of liability in recent times. After distinguishing aiding and abetting from other modes of liability, discussing its scope of application and its generally accepted elements, this chapter identifies and analyses 11 issues that have emerged from the case law of the ad hoc and hybrid international criminal tribunals and from the International Criminal Court (ICC): (i) specific direction and the Actus reus; (ii) the definition of the substantial contribution/effect Actus reus element; (iii) the Actus reus threshold at the ICC; (iv) purposive mens rea at the ICC; (v) knowledge vs. purpose and the mens rea; (vi) recklessness and the mens rea; (vii) the commission of a crime at the ICC; (viii) pior agreement and ex post facto aiding and abetting; (ix) criminal law duty to act and aiding and abetting by omission; (x) complicity in genocide vs. aiding and abetting genocide; and (xi) encouragement or moral support and the principal perpetrators. An overall assessment of aiding and abetting, its status under international criminal law, evidentiary factors and conclusive principles follow.

  • The Taylor Trial and Appeal Judgments and the Rejection of ‘Specific Direction’ as an Actus reus Element of Aiding and Abetting
    , 2016
    Co-Authors: Manuel J. Ventura

    Abstract:

    The Special Court of Sierra Leone (‘SCSL’)’s Taylor Trial Judgment convicted Charles Ghankay Taylor – the former Head of State of Liberia – for aiding and abetting (and planning) the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Revolutionary United Front (‘RUF’) and the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (‘AFRC’) during the vicious civil war in neighbouring Sierra Leone. Yet, unbeknownst to the judges of the Trial Chamber at the time, in its findings on the law – and the cases it relied upon for that purpose – would lie the seeds for one of the biggest legal controversies that international criminal law has arguably ever seen. But this would not become apparent until some 9 months later when the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’) Appeals Chamber handed down the Perisic Appeal Judgment, holding that, inter alia, ‘specific direction’ was an element of the Actus reus of aiding and abetting. As a direct result of this finding, the SCSL Appeals Chamber faced the very real possibility of having to acquit Taylor for half of his convictions on appeal. However, that was not to be. Instead, the Taylor Appeal Judgment unequivocally and quite openly disagreed with the Perisic Appeal Judgment on the Actus reus of aiding and abetting liability. This resulted not only in the visible fragmentation of international criminal law, but also in an explosion of commentary and literature on the subject of ‘specific direction’. The present commentary focuses on the findings of the Taylor Trial Judgment and the Taylor Appeal Judgment as they related to ‘specific direction’ and the Actus reus of aiding and abetting, together with the relevant findings of the Perisic Trial Judgment and the Perisic Appeal Judgment on the same issue. While the entire ‘specific direction’ saga did not bode well for international criminal law as a discipline, the matter has since been laid to rest as a result of subsequent jurisprudence that, like the Taylor Appeal Judgment, has rejected the Perisic Appeal Judgment, much of it coming from the ICTY itself.

David Ormerod – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 2. The elements of a crime
    Smith Hogan & Ormerod's Text Cases & Materials on Criminal Law, 2020
    Co-Authors: David Ormerod, Karl Laird

    Abstract:

    This chapter focuses on the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea. It explains the constituents of an Actus reus; the requirement of an act; the coincidence of Actus reus and mens rea; and criminal liability without an act.

  • 11. General inchoate offences
    Smith Hogan & Ormerod's Essentials of Criminal Law, 2019
    Co-Authors: John Child, David Ormerod

    Abstract:

    This chapter deals with general inchoate offences. A person’s conduct may be inchoate (‘just begun’, ‘undeveloped’), but also deserving of criminalisation. The chapter is structured around the three core general inchoate offences, namely: attempt, conspiracy, and assisting or encouraging. It explains the Actus reus and mens rea of each of these offences, along with specific defences. It also looks at double inchoate liability, substantive offences in an inchoate form, and potential options for legal reform concerning the Actus reus of attempts, the mens rea of attempts and conspiracy, and assisting and encouraging. Finally, the chapter discusses the application of general inchoate offences within problem questions. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, with brief summaries of the main facts and judgments.

  • Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod’s Criminal Law – 2. The elements of a crime: Actus reus
    Smith Hogan & Ormerod's Criminal Law, 2018
    Co-Authors: David Ormerod, Karl Laird

    Abstract:

    The chapter begins the exploration of the elements of criminal offences. Two factors are crucial: the event, behaviour or state of affairs known as the external element or Actus reus, and the state of mind known as the mental element or mens rea. This chapter discusses the principle of Actus reus, proof and the elements of the offence, how to identify elements of Actus reus and mens rea, coincidence of Actus reus and mens rea, the effect of penalty provisions in determining the elements of the Actus reus, Actus reus and justification or excuse, the problematic case of Dadson with regard to Actus reus, physical involuntariness, a ‘state of affairs’ as an Actus reus, general liability for omissions, offences of mere omission, causation, the ‘but for’ principle, the connection between fault and result, and negligible causes.

Karl Laird – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 2. The elements of a crime
    Smith Hogan & Ormerod's Text Cases & Materials on Criminal Law, 2020
    Co-Authors: David Ormerod, Karl Laird

    Abstract:

    This chapter focuses on the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea. It explains the constituents of an Actus reus; the requirement of an act; the coincidence of Actus reus and mens rea; and criminal liability without an act.

  • Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod’s Criminal Law – 2. The elements of a crime: Actus reus
    Smith Hogan & Ormerod's Criminal Law, 2018
    Co-Authors: David Ormerod, Karl Laird

    Abstract:

    The chapter begins the exploration of the elements of criminal offences. Two factors are crucial: the event, behaviour or state of affairs known as the external element or Actus reus, and the state of mind known as the mental element or mens rea. This chapter discusses the principle of Actus reus, proof and the elements of the offence, how to identify elements of Actus reus and mens rea, coincidence of Actus reus and mens rea, the effect of penalty provisions in determining the elements of the Actus reus, Actus reus and justification or excuse, the problematic case of Dadson with regard to Actus reus, physical involuntariness, a ‘state of affairs’ as an Actus reus, general liability for omissions, offences of mere omission, causation, the ‘but for’ principle, the connection between fault and result, and negligible causes.

  • Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod’s Criminal Law – 3. The elements of a crime: mens rea
    Smith Hogan & Ormerod's Criminal Law, 2018
    Co-Authors: David Ormerod, Karl Laird

    Abstract:

    This chapter examines the mens rea or mental fault of the accused. Because an Actus reus is treated in law as a bad thing, an intention to cause it is, in law, a bad intention, a guilty mind. Similarly, consciously taking an unjustified risk of causing an Actus reus—that is, recklessness—is also a bad state of mind. Unintentionally causing an Actus reus by negligence may also be regarded as legally blameworthy. Each of these implies different degrees of ‘fault’. The chapter also discusses subjective and objective fault, intention in crimes other than murder, the distinction between motive and intention, subjective recklessness and malice, wilful blindness, suspicion and reasonable grounds to suspect, the correspondence principle and constructive crime, coincidence in time of Actus reus and mens rea, ignorance of the law, absence of a ‘claim of right’ as an element in mens rea and proof of intention and foresight.