Criminal Liability Essay

In right there is a fundamental principle which is guaranteed by the constitution that every person is clean-handed until proven to be chargeable by the courts of rectitude, in woeful law there are deuce principles of criminal indebtedness which have to be relied upon in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accuse person. Therefore the aim of this essay is to argue the two principles of law for criminal liability with reference to the Penal Code pr solveice, Chapter Eighty Seven (87) of the Laws of Zambia and Zambian decided cases. In order to effectively do this, the essay result begin by generally talking about the two principles of law for criminal liability which are the Actus reus and the mens rea and in order to critically discuss them, focus go away be made on the Homicide offence of assassinate with the use of relevant Zambian cases. The terms Actus reus and Mens rea are derived from the Latin saw Actus non facit reum mens sit rea which mean that there can non be such a social occasion as legal guilt where there is no moral guilt.The well-read author Simon E Kulusika defines Actus reus as whatever act or cut or state of affairs as hardened down in the definition of the particular crime charged in addition to either surrounding circumstancesand the mens rea as the state of melodic theme or imperfection which is begd in the definition of the crime in fountainheadIn order for a person to be reprehensively liable it has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that such a person had affiliated the postulate guilty act or actus reus which is the physical element and had the needed mental state or mens rea although this is not always the case as some criminal offences do not require the mens rea for liability to be copeed.Some of the cases which do not require establishment of the mens rea are offences referred to as offences of strict liability. In Patels Bazaar limited v The People4 it was verbalise that proof of the mens rea is not incumbent to establish a strict liability offence, this was a case in which the accuse was convicted for the strict liability offence of selling unwholesome bread. in general speaking in criminal law in order to establish criminal liability certain elements of the crime alleged to have been committed must be identified, the first being the conduct prohibited or actus reus, secondly the state of mind or fault element which is required when defining the crime in question also referred to as mens rea and third proof of lack of a defence which might vitiate each of the twoprinciples of criminal liability. As earlier alluded to, for the purposes of this assignment focus will be put on the homicide offence of Murder in severe to discuss these two principles of law of criminal liability.To establish the actus reus of move out it has to be proved that there is unlawful killing of a person, the death pursuance within a day and a year of the infliction of t he dim injury,this is evident in Section 200 of our Penal Code Act 6 which provides Any person who of maliciousness aforethought(postnominal) causes the death of another(prenominal)(prenominal) person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder. In this section the actus reus is identified as causing death of another person by an unlawful act or omission and the mens rea is the malice aforethought. In Chitenge v The People it was held that the actus reus of murder is that there is a unwarranted body, in this case the appellant having had fought with his friend went to the friends phratry and set it on fire burning a person that was inwardly leading to the death of that person. The dead burnt body sufficed as actus reus in spite of the defendant not actually having had checked as to whether there was a person in the house or not. Coming to the mens rea, the requirement is that the incriminate person must have malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought is used to describe the mens rea of murder and it simply means that the mens rea must not come as an afterthought. In the case of Mbomena Moola v the people, the appellant was convicted of murder of his father after he poisoned his maheu drink.In his confession the appellant stated that he poisoned his father so that he could die because he believed that he was the one who bewitched his children. In this case the courts held that it was quiet clear that the accused had the necessary mens rea for murder as he expressly intended on causing death of his victim. Taking into consideration the facts given in the question where the accused is charged with murder in which the mens rea is that the accused must be malice aforethought and the actus reus being the death which is satisfactory in this case, it is outlay noting that where offences complained of happened during participation in a sport, the accused cannot be held to be criminally liable as in law it is believed that when participants to a sp orting enlivened give consent they do so to all the risks of injury that whitethorn take place as a result of calamitys that may take place during the sport including death.Therefore applying the two principles of law of criminal liability to the given facts it can be stated that thoughthe actus reus was present, that is the death of Mr Mudenda, Mr Chisolo lacked the necessary mens rea to be convicted for murder and can also not be convicted of manslaughter repayable to the fact that the death or actus reus was as a result of an accident in a sport of which consent by the participants vitiates criminal liability. In conclusion it can be stated that this essay has identified two principles of law of criminal liability which are the actus reus and the mens rea. It has being discussed that the actus reus refers to whatever act or omission or state of affairs as laid down in the definition of the particular crime charged in addition to any surrounding circumstances and an example was given in the offence of murder. The mens rea with reference to murder was also discussed as the state of mind or fault which is required in the definition of the crime in question and that criminal liability cannot be inferred if the offence complained of took place during the circumstance of a sport as consent vitiates it.BIBLIOGRAPHYBOOKSKulusika S. E, Criminal law in Zambia text, cases and materials UNZA press. Lusaka. 2006 Sir Smith J and Hogan B, Criminal law Cases and materials, sixth edition capital of Ireland & Edinburgh. Butterworth. 1996 CASESChitenge v the people (1996) ZR 37Mbomena Moola v the people (2000) ZR 148 SCSTATUTESThe Penal Code Act, Chapter 87 of the laws of Zambia.