ABSTRACT
Many criminal lawyers, judges, and professors see the distinction between actus reus and mens rea as one of the more basic of criminal law. Along with the offence-defence distinction, it helps us organize the way we conceptualize and analyse liability. It is said to be 'the corner-stone of discussion on the nature of criminal liability'. No doubt the actus reus-mens rea distinction is a logical and natural extension of the obvious empirical difference between a person's conduct, which we can directly observe, and his intention, which we cannot. The concepts of actus reus and mens rea adequately capture these two facts and note the empirical difference. The act requirement and the voluntariness requirement, frequently treated as a single actus reus requirement, are related but distinct doctrines. The objective elements of offence definitions typically are included in the 'actus reus' requirements. The actus reus requirement, in the narrow, actrequirement sense, is not a universal requirement.
