CSS 152 MAIN.pdf - National Open University of Nigeria

CSS 152 INTRODUCTION TO NIGERIA CRIMINAL LAW
3.3 The Concurrence of the Physical Element and the Mental
Element
The physical element must co-exist with the mental element and they
must simultaneously or contemporaneously complement each other as a
matter of law. This is an English Law concept and its import is yet to be
firmly considered in Nigeria Law according to the learned authors of
Okonkwo and Naish in their book Criminal Law in Nigeria.
It is another way of saying that both the actus reus and the mens rea of
an offence correspond.
Exceptions
It is important to state that exceptions have been developed through case
law to the principle of concurrence of physical and mental elements.
The first of such exceptions was developed by Lord Denning in the case
of Attorney General for Northern Ireland v. Gallagher (1963) AL 349.
In that case, the learned law Lord opined “Where a person whilst sane
and sober forms an intention to kill and then prepares for it, knowing it
to be a wrong thing to do, he cannot thereafter rely on self induced
drunkenness as a defence to a charge of murder”.
In the above Case, the House of Lords allowed the appeal on the basis
that if before the killing, the accused had discarded his intention to kill
or reserved it and got drunk, it would have been a different matter, but
when he forms the intention to kill and without any interruption
proceeds to get drunk and carries out his intention, then his drunkenness
is no defence, moreso it is dressed up as a defence on insanity. There
was no evidence in the present case of any interruption. Lord Denning
said that the wickedness of the accused person’s mind before he got
drunk is enough to condemn him coupled with the act which he intended
to do which he actually did.
The second of such exceptions is that if the actus reus is a continuing
one, it is sufficient that the accused has mens rea during its continuance;
mens rea gallops up to coincide with the actus reus.
The second exception, as highlighted above, can better be understood
based on the decided case of Fagan v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner (1968) 3 ALL ER 442.
The third exception is that when the actus reus is part of a larger
transaction, it is said to be sufficient if the accused possessed the intent
21