In simple terms
Criminal law decides what is a crime and how it is treated. It is practical. It is not a sermon. In Sierra Leone, liability still starts from one sentence: an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty as well.
The function of the criminal law is to set the limits within which the criminal justice system works. That system is a tool of social control. The rules are the rules of social control in a particular society. What is forbidden depends on the corporate morality of that society. Violence, theft and rape are the paradigms. Other conduct is a crime only if that society has decided to treat it as one.
The Wolfenden Report put the purpose in three lines. The law preserves public order and decency. It protects the citizen from what is offensive or injurious. It guards people who are especially vulnerable because they are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or dependent. It is not the function of the law to intervene in private life, or to enforce a pattern of behaviour, further than those purposes require. To that extent the criminal law reflects social morality. The wrong it punishes is the wrong that threatens the values on which the society is founded. An or a robbery harms the victim and also the society.
Criminal liability in Sierra Leone is expressed in the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: an act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is also guilty. There are two elements. The physical element is the . The mental element is the . Both must be proved by the prosecution . A person must do something the law forbids, and must do it with the wrongful state of mind the definition requires.
Lord Goddard called those two elements the cardinal doctrine, in Younghusband v Luftig. Lord Kenyon, in Fowler v Padget, said it is a principle of that the intent and the act must concur. Lord Hailsham, in Haughton v Smith, put the same point the other way round. It is not the act which is "reus". It is the person, and the mind.
A suggestion that a crime has three elements, the act, the mind, and the absence of a defence, has not been widely accepted. For these chapters, mens rea means the mental element in the definition of the crime. Excuses and justifications are defences. They are not folded into the word mens rea.
Words and Latin in this note
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- The high standard of proof in criminal cases: the prosecution must prove guilt so that the tribunal is sure. It is short of certainty, and it is not a mere shadow of a doubt. Open the note.
- Natural justice
- Two rules of fair procedure: no one should be a judge in his own cause, and each side must be heard. Open the 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.
- Mens rea
- The mental element in the definition of a crime. It is not one standard. Intention is the highest form. Recklessness is below it. Gross negligence sits at the bottom. The definition of the particular crime decides which is required. Open the note.
Memory map
What criminal law does
Key points
- The criminal law sets the limits of social…
- In Sierra Leone both the act and the guilty…
- The intent and the act must concur
Cases
- Younghusband v Luftig
- Fowler v Padget
- Haughton v Smith
Key terms
- Actus reus
- Mens rea
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- Assault
Take-home points
- The criminal law sets the limits of social control. It is not a moral code for private life.
- In Sierra Leone both the act and the guilty mind must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- The intent and the act must concur. A third element called 'absence of a defence' has not been accepted as part of the definition.
Cases in this topic
Related case law
Full judgments on Lanbuk on the same areas of law.
- Hall v R, 1964-66 ALR S.L. 189Sierra Leone
- Michael A.M.Kamara v S (CR APP 9 of 2020) [2022] SLCA 9 (4 October 2022)Sierra Leone
- James Thomas Reffell & Regina (CR APP 27 of 1962) [2021] SLCA 2 (12 January 2021)Sierra Leone
- Alimu Bah V The State (CR APP 52 of 2010) [2014] SLCA 1 (6 May 2014)Sierra Leone
- Bundu Kargbo & Regina (CR APP 8 of 1963) [1963] SLCA 1229 (20 March 1963)Sierra Leone
- Divin Koroma & 2 Others v Regina (CRI APP 22 of 1962) [1962] SLCA 57 (16 November 1962)Sierra Leone
- Richards and Others v R (WACA CR APP 6 of 1956) [1956] SLCA 3 (5 June 1956)Sierra Leone
- Mawela & Another v S (377/2021) [2022] ZASCA 18 (16 February 2022)
See also
- Younghusband v Luftig · Lanbuk on Criminal Law · 2 KB 354
- Fowler v Padget · Lanbuk on Criminal Law · 7 TR 509
- Haughton v Smith · Lanbuk on Criminal Law · AC 476
Lecture notes on this subject
- No Case Submission: Interpreting 'Otherwise Deals in or With' under the National Drugs Control Act 2008Criminal procedure
- Legal Authorities for a No Case Submission on Drug Importation ChargesCriminal procedure
- No Case to Answer: Analysis of a Drug Importation ProsecutionCriminal procedure
- Criminal Procedure: Law School NotesCriminal procedure
- Submission of No Case to Answer: Dealing in Prohibited DrugsCriminal procedure
Other law notes by subject
Arbitration
Business and human rights
Civil procedure
- The Slip Rule and Judicial Finality: Correcting Errors in Court Orders in the UK and Sierra Leone
- Sierra Leone's Court System and Starting Civil Proceedings in the High Court
- Who Addresses the Court First in Closing Speeches, and Why
- Disposal of Cases on Points of Law under Order 17
- Garnishee Proceedings under Order 50
- Interlocutory and Final Judgments
Constitutional and administrative law
Contract law
Environmental and climate law
Equity and trusts
Exam preparation
Family law
Human rights
International law
Radiation and nuclear safety law

