The case of Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1969] 1 Q.B. 439 is a landmark decision that fundamentally addresses the relationship between actus reus (the physical act) and mens rea (the mental state) in the commission of criminal offences under English law.
This case is significant in establishing the principles of concurrence, or the requirement that both actus reus and mens rea must exist at the same time to constitute a crime. Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis also provides essential clarification regarding the concept of a continuing offence, specifically in the context of battery.
The case not only contributes to the development of criminal law but also sets important precedents for how criminal liability is assessed when an individual inadvertently causes harm but subsequently refuses to stop the harmful act.
Facts of Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
The events in Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis unfolded when the defendant, Mr. Fagan, was sitting in his car. A police officer approached him and instructed him to move the vehicle. In response, Fagan reversed the car, unintentionally driving it onto the officer’s foot.
The officer, in considerable discomfort, forcefully instructed Fagan to move the car off his foot. However, Fagan did not comply, and instead, he swore at the officer, refused to move the car, and turned off the engine.
The officer’s foot remained trapped under the vehicle, and Fagan’s defiance in refusing to move the car led to him being charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty.
At trial, Fagan was convicted of assaulting a police officer, and he subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that the act of driving onto the officer’s foot had been accidental. He contended that because the act was not intentional, there was no mens rea at the time of the incident, and thus, he could not be guilty of assault. Furthermore, Fagan argued that an omission to act—his failure to move the car off the officer’s foot—could not constitute an assault.
Issues in the Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis Case
The main issue in Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis revolved around whether an assault could be committed by an omission, and whether the act of driving onto the officer’s foot was indeed accidental. The legal question was whether the prosecution had proven that both actus reus (the act) and mens rea (the intention) were present at the time of the offence.
For an assault to be committed under English law, both these elements must be proven to be present concurrently (concurrence), meaning that the physical act and the mental state must align at the same time.
Fagan’s legal team argued that there could be no assault because the driving onto the officer’s foot was not intentional. They also contended that a mere omission to act (failing to move the car) could not be sufficient for an assault to occur.
This argument suggested that the continuous nature of the act (the car remaining on the officer’s foot) had not been established as a battery, nor had the necessary mens rea been present at the time of the initial contact.
Legal Analysis and Court’s Decision in Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
In its judgement, the Divisional Court in Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis addressed two significant legal points: the concept of actus reus and mens rea, and the notion of a continuing offence.
Omission and Assault
The court was in agreement that an omission alone cannot constitute an assault. This principle is based on the understanding that a failure to act—such as neglecting to move a car after driving onto someone’s foot—does not, by itself, constitute an unlawful assault.
An assault, under English law, typically involves an intentional act of causing someone to fear immediate and unlawful force. An omission, or a passive failure to act, does not ordinarily satisfy this requirement.
However, the court clarified that in this case, the crime was not based on the omission to move the car. Rather, the crime was established as a continuous act of battery. In this case, Fagan’s actions went beyond the mere failure to move the car.
The actus reus of the offence was not complete until Fagan realised that he had driven onto the officer’s foot and, more crucially, until he decided not to stop or rectify the situation. By continuing to keep the car on the officer’s foot, Fagan engaged in an ongoing battery, which is a form of physical assault.
Continuous Battery and Concurrence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
A central element of the court’s ruling in Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis was the concept of a continuing act. The court found that Fagan’s initial act of driving onto the officer’s foot was accidental, and thus, there was no mens rea at that point in time. However, the offence was not complete at the moment of the initial contact.
When Fagan realised that he had trapped the officer’s foot, he had a choice: to remove the car or to continue to inflict harm. By choosing not to move the car, Fagan formed the necessary mens rea for the offence, as he deliberately failed to act to remove the harm.
This failure to cease the harmful act constituted a continuing battery, which meant that actus reus and mens rea were present at the same time, satisfying the legal requirement for an assault. This is a critical aspect of the judgement, as it establishes that an individual may form the necessary intention (mens rea) to commit an offence even after the initial act, so long as they have knowledge of the consequences and choose to continue their actions.
In other words, the court held that the act of battery—defined as the unlawful application of force to another person—became a continuous act from the moment the car was driven onto the officer’s foot, continuing until Fagan consciously chose not to remove the car.
This conscious decision to continue inflicting harm satisfied both the physical act (actus reus) and the mental element (mens rea) required to establish an assault.
Outcome and Appeal
The appeal in Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis was dismissed, and Fagan’s conviction for assaulting a police officer was upheld. The court found that, although the initial contact with the officer’s foot was accidental, Fagan’s refusal to move the car after realising the harm he had caused constituted an ongoing battery. As such, the necessary elements of actus reus and mens rea were present, and Fagan was guilty of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis is a significant case in the development of criminal law in the UK, particularly in relation to the principles of concurrence and continuous offences. The court’s decision clarifies that actus reus and mens rea do not have to occur at precisely the same moment, but can develop over time in certain cases, such as in the case of a continuous battery.
Fagan’s conviction for assault was upheld, and the case has since served as an important precedent for understanding the interplay between physical acts and mental states in criminal law. This decision has had a lasting impact on the way in which courts assess criminal liability, particularly in cases where an act initially begins accidentally but becomes a conscious, ongoing offence.
