Crimes_Convicted_on_Actus_Reus_Alone.docx

actus reus

1. Crimes Convicted on Actus Reus Alone
Introduction
In criminal law, liability generally arises when both the physical act (*actus reus*) and
the guilty mind (*mens rea*) coexist. This principle ensures that only morally
blameworthy individuals are punished. However, in certain categories of offences, a
person may be convicted based solely on the *actus reus*, without any need to prove
*mens rea*. These exceptions exist primarily to safeguard public welfare and
administrative efficiency.
The main categories of crimes that may be convicted on *actus reus* alone are: (1) strict
liability offences, (2) absolute liability offences, and (3) vicarious liability offences.
1. Strict Liability Offences
Strict liability offences are those where the prosecution does not need to prove mens rea
concerning one or more elements of the offence. Proof of the act alone suffices, although
the accused may sometimes rely on the defence of due diligence. These offences are
generally statutory and aim to protect public welfare, such as health, safety, or
environmental protection.
Characteristics:
- The offence does not require intent, recklessness, or knowledge.
- It promotes compliance with regulations rather than moral blameworthiness.
- It is mostly applied in regulatory areas like food safety, traffic, or drugs control.
Examples:
1. Uganda – *Uganda v Kabandize* (1975) HCB 184. The court held that traffic offences
under the Traffic and Road Safety Act are strict liability because they promote public
safety.
2. UK – *Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd* [1986] 1 AC 855. A
pharmacist was convicted of supplying drugs on a forged prescription even though he
lacked knowledge of the forgery. The offence required no mens rea.
3. UK – *Callow v Tillstone* [1900] 83 LT 411. A butcher was convicted for selling
unfit meat despite relying on a veterinary surgeon’s assurance that it was fit for
consumption.
4. Kenya – *Republic v Njuguna* [1979] eKLR. The court held that public welfare
offences, such as those under the Traffic Act, require only proof of the act itself.

2. Statutory provisions:
- Section 5 of Uganda’s Traffic and Road Safety Act, 1998 – driving without a licence is
an offence regardless of intent.
- Section 19 of the Public Health Act (Cap 281, Laws of Uganda) – offences for failing to
observe sanitary requirements.
- Food Safety Act 1990 (UK) – imposes strict liability for selling unsafe food.
- Environmental Protection Act 1990 (UK) – liability for pollution without proof of
intent.
- Section 8(3) of the Canadian Criminal Code – recognizes regulatory offences that
dispense with mens rea.
2. Absolute Liability Offences
Absolute liability offences go further: no proof of mens rea is required, and no defence is
available once the actus reus is proved. The accused is convicted simply by committing
the prohibited act, regardless of intent, mistake, or even compulsion.
Examples:
1. UK – *R v Larsonneur* [1933] KB 59. The defendant, a French national, was
convicted of being found in the UK after deportation, even though she was brought there
involuntarily. The offence was absolute.
2. UK – *Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent* [1983] QB 331. The defendant was found
drunk on a highway, having been placed there by police. The conviction stood, as actus
reus alone sufficed.
3. Uganda – *Uganda v Ocheng* (1970) HCB 85. Possession of smuggled goods under
the Customs Act was held to be an offence of absolute liability.
4. Canada – *Reference re Section 94(2) of Motor Vehicle Act (BC)* [1985] 2 SCR 486.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that absolute liability violates the Charter when
imprisonment is possible, reaffirming its strict limits.
3. Vicarious Liability Offences
Vicarious liability occurs when one person, typically an employer, is held criminally
responsible for the actions of another, such as an employee, even without personal fault.
Such liability arises mainly in corporate and regulatory contexts to ensure compliance
with public welfare laws.
Examples:
- *Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass* [1972] AC 153 – employers can be liable for
employees’ actions if they failed to exercise proper supervision.
- Under Uganda’s Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2006, employers are responsible
for ensuring workplace safety and can be convicted for violations committed by
employees.

3. 4. Policy Justifications for Actus Reus–Only Crimes
Courts and legislatures justify the imposition of liability based solely on actus reus for
several reasons:
- **Public Protection:** Ensures higher standards of care in matters affecting health,
safety, and environment.
- **Administrative Efficiency:** Simplifies enforcement of large-scale regulations.
- **Deterrence:** Encourages individuals and corporations to act with utmost vigilance.
- **Moral Neutrality:** Such offences carry little or no moral stigma and primarily serve
preventive purposes.
5. Criticisms
Despite their utility, actus reus–only offences have faced criticism for:
- Undermining the moral foundation of criminal law.
- Risking the conviction of morally innocent persons.
- Violating constitutional protections such as the presumption of innocence under Article
28 of the Constitution of Uganda and Article 7 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR).
In *Sweet v Parsley* [1970] AC 132, the House of Lords reaffirmed that courts must
presume mens rea unless Parliament clearly indicates its exclusion.
6. Comparative Commonwealth Approach
In *Sherras v De Rutzen* [1895] 1 QB 918, the English court emphasized the
presumption of mens rea unless clearly excluded by statute. Similarly, in *R v City of
Sault Ste. Marie* [1978] 2 SCR 1299, the Canadian Supreme Court recognized three
types of offences: (1) true crimes (requiring mens rea), (2) strict liability (allowing due
diligence defence), and (3) absolute liability (no defence).
These principles have influenced Ugandan and East African jurisprudence, especially in
interpreting modern statutory offences where legislative intent is key.
Conclusion
Crimes based solely on actus reus are exceptions to the foundational principle of criminal
liability. They exist mainly to safeguard public welfare, ensure regulatory compliance,
and promote vigilance. While they enhance administrative effectiveness, courts must
apply them narrowly to avoid injustice and uphold fairness as mandated under
constitutional and common law principles.
Selected Authorities
- *Uganda v Kabandize* (1975) HCB 184

4. - *Uganda v Ocheng* (1970) HCB 85
- *Pharmaceutical Society v Storkwain Ltd* [1986] 1 AC 855
- *Callow v Tillstone* [1900] 83 LT 411
- *R v Larsonneur* [1933] KB 59
- *Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent* [1983] QB 331
- *Sweet v Parsley* [1970] AC 132
- *R v City of Sault Ste. Marie* [1978] 2 SCR 1299
- *Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass* [1972] AC 153
- *Sherras v De Rutzen* [1895] 1 QB 918
- Traffic and Road Safety Act, 1998 (Uganda)
- Public Health Act (Cap 281, Uganda)
- Food Safety Act 1990 (UK)
- Environmental Protection Act 1990 (UK)
- Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2006 (Uganda)