Objective Vs Subjective Elements Of Offences
Objective vs. Subjective Elements of Offences
In criminal law, an offence typically consists of objective elements (actus reus) and subjective elements (mens rea). Understanding the distinction is crucial for determining criminal liability.
I. Objective Elements (Actus Reus)
Definition:
The external, physical component of the offence.
What the accused did or failed to do, regardless of intent.
Key Examples:
Physical act: hitting someone (assault)
Omission: failure to feed a dependent (neglect)
Consequences: death in homicide, property damage in theft
Importance:
Establishes the factual occurrence of a crime.
Without the act, criminal liability usually cannot attach (except strict liability offences).
II. Subjective Elements (Mens Rea)
Definition:
The mental or psychological element of the offence.
Refers to intention, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence.
Types:
Intention (dolus) – deliberate act to commit a crime.
Recklessness – conscious disregard of substantial risk.
Negligence (culpa) – failure to foresee and prevent harm that a reasonable person would anticipate.
Importance:
Determines the degree of liability (e.g., murder vs. manslaughter).
Can be mitigating or aggravating factor in sentencing.
III. Interaction Between Objective and Subjective Elements
Full liability exists when both objective and subjective elements are present.
Some offences (strict liability) require only objective elements; intent is irrelevant.
Proof of mens rea is critical in serious offences such as murder, fraud, or theft.
IV. Case Law Examples
Here are six detailed cases illustrating the distinction between objective and subjective elements:
Case 1: Supreme Court (KKO) 1987:12 – Theft with Intent
Facts:
Defendant took another person’s wallet from a store without permission.
Objective Element:
Physical act of taking the wallet (act of appropriation).
Subjective Element:
Intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
Court Findings:
Court confirmed that both act (taking) and intent (to steal) were present.
Outcome:
Conviction for theft upheld.
Significance:
Classic example: theft requires both physical act and criminal intent.
Case 2: District Court Helsinki 1993:5 – Assault Without Intent
Facts:
Defendant struck someone accidentally while attempting to catch a falling object.
Objective Element:
Physical act of hitting another person (assault).
Subjective Element:
No intent to harm; act was accidental.
Court Findings:
Mens rea missing.
Court held that no criminal liability for assault, though civil liability for damages existed.
Significance:
Illustrates importance of subjective intent in intentional crimes.
Case 3: Supreme Court KKO 2000:8 – Negligent Homicide
Facts:
Driver caused a fatal accident due to reckless speeding.
Objective Element:
Driving caused death.
Subjective Element:
Court assessed recklessness (conscious disregard for safety).
Court Findings:
Defendant found guilty of negligent homicide, not murder, because no intent to kill existed.
Outcome:
Conditional imprisonment and license suspension.
Significance:
Demonstrates that objective harm can exist without intent, altering the charge.
Case 4: KKO 2005:3 – Fraud
Facts:
Defendant falsified financial documents to obtain loans.
Objective Element:
Submission of falsified documents (act of deception).
Subjective Element:
Intent to gain financial benefit unlawfully.
Court Findings:
Both act and intent proven; conviction for fraud upheld.
Significance:
Shows necessity of proving both actus reus and mens rea in economic crimes.
Case 5: District Court Tampere 2010:12 – Strict Liability Offence (Traffic Violation)
Facts:
Driver exceeded speed limit by 25 km/h.
Objective Element:
Driving faster than allowed.
Subjective Element:
Intent irrelevant; liability arises solely from act.
Court Findings:
Conviction upheld; no need to prove intent or knowledge of risk.
Significance:
Example of objective element only offences (strict liability).
Case 6: KKO 2015:7 – Conditional Theft With Recklessness
Facts:
Defendant took property believing it might be unclaimed.
Objective Element:
Physical act of taking property.
Subjective Element:
Court examined recklessness (awareness that property belonged to another).
Court Findings:
Conviction upheld; recklessness sufficient for liability.
Significance:
Shows alternative mens rea standards (recklessness vs intent) in Finnish criminal law.
V. Summary Table of Case Law
| Case | Offence | Objective Element | Subjective Element | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KKO 1987:12 | Theft | Took wallet | Intent to steal | Conviction | Act + intent required |
| Helsinki 1993:5 | Assault | Hit victim | Accidental, no intent | No criminal liability | Missing mens rea |
| KKO 2000:8 | Negligent homicide | Caused death | Recklessness | Conviction (lesser charge) | Harm without intent |
| KKO 2005:3 | Fraud | Falsified documents | Intent to deceive | Conviction | Both elements required |
| Tampere 2010:12 | Traffic violation | Speeding | None needed | Conviction | Strict liability |
| KKO 2015:7 | Theft (conditional) | Took property | Recklessness | Conviction | Alternative mens rea suffices |
VI. Key Takeaways
Objective elements = the physical act or result.
Subjective elements = the mental state or intent.
Both are required for most serious offences; strict liability is the exception.
Degree of mens rea affects severity of offence (e.g., murder vs manslaughter).
Finnish courts carefully analyze mens rea in cases of negligence, recklessness, and conditional intent.
RELATED Blog
comments