Changes: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Revision as of 14:44, 22 June 2012

Facts

Fagan was parking his car when a police officer sees a spot in which he would like Fagen to park. While directing Fagan, Fagan runs over the officer's foot. The officer requested Fagan move the car, but Fagan refused and the car was shut off. Eventually Fagan started the car and moved off the officer's foot. As a result of this incident, Fagan was charged with assault and convicted.

Issue

Did the prosecution prove that the facts amount to an assault?
Do the mens rea and actus reus have to occur at the same time?

Decision

Appeal dismissed.

Reasons

James, writing for the majority, held that Fagan’s conduct could not be describes as a mere omission. At the outset there was an act constituting a battery, but it was not criminal because there was no element of intention. However, the action became criminal from the moment that the intention was formed (when he refused to move and shut off the engine) which followed directly from the continuing act. The action and intention did not have to occur at the same time, because the action was a continuing act that overlapped with the intention to create a crime. Therefore, as the act and intention were present in the offence, he must be found guilty.

Bridge, in the dissent, stated that the defendant cannot be found guilty because after the intention was formed he did nothing that could constitute the actus reus required for assault.

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 Appeal dismissed.
 ==Reasons==
+James, writing for the majority, held that Fagan’s conduct could not be describes as a mere omission. At the outset there was an act constituting a battery, but it was not criminal because there was no element of intention. However, the action became criminal from the moment that the intention was formed (when he refused to move and shut off the engine) which followed directly from the continuing act. The action and intention did not have to occur at the same time, because the action was a continuing act that overlapped with the intention to create a crime. Therefore, as the act and intention were present in the offence, he must be found guilty.
+Bridge, in the dissent, stated that the defendant cannot be found guilty because after the intention was formed he did nothing that could constitute the ''actus reus'' required for assault.
 ==Ratio==
 [[Category:Criminal law]]