actus

Most criminal statutes look insane if you ignore the mens rea component and consider only the actus reus.

A crime requires the confluence of the required mens rea and the required actus reus; the former alone is not sufficient.

They have to make their case on both mens rea and actus reus.

Even granting applicability of mens rea / actus reus analysis here, I believe your analysis is wrong.

Focus on Chapter 6, about Mens Rea, and Chapter 8, Actus Reus.

And actus reus is a fairly critical technical element of the law.

The question I guess is how you can take a concrete step, an actus reus, towards putting an agreement in to effect wherein the target of the action is entirely fictitious.

You also need an actus reus -- a guilty act.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you need to have actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) to prosecute.

In that case, all this talk about what is/isn't authorized access still complies with the basics of common law because it defines what is an actus reus.

I see you all around this threat repeatedly trying to reason about half a criminal charge: the actus reus used to gain access to computer system.

Should we presume you're anti-depiction then, but pro actus reus?

In Common Law countries, at least, criminality exists in the presence of mens rea — the "guilty mind" — and actus reus, an overt action.

There absolutely could be some "actus reus" from a login.

His "actus reus" was, I think we all agree, very minimal.

The notion of a concurrence of the "mens rea" (the guilty mind) and the "actus rea" (the guilty act) would seem to apply here.