Haughton v Smith
1975 · AC 476
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Police had recovered stolen goods. Smith handled them afterwards, believing they were still stolen. The House of Lords held there was no offence of attempting to handle stolen goods, because the goods were no longer stolen.
- Issue
- Where does criminal guilt sit, in the act or in the person?
- Held
- Lord Hailsham said an act does not make a man guilty unless his mind is also guilty. It is not the act which is reus, but the man and his mind.
- Principle
- The label is a shorthand. Guilt is of the person who has the required mind.
- Why it matters
- The case is also the old leading case on impossible attempts. The sentence used here is the one on the maxim.
Words and Latin in this note
- Actus reus
- The physical part of a crime: the act, the circumstances, and in a result crime the consequence. It does not include the state of mind. It must be voluntary, unless the offence is one of the rare status crimes. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.