mens rea

• intention (specific intent)- Mohan case

  ' a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, no matter the accused desire that consequence of his act or not.'
• direct intent- they intend the specific consequence to occur.
• oblique intent- defendant doesnt necessarily desire an outcome, it isnt their aim and purpose.
• Foresight of consequences:

  the defendants main aim was not the prohibited consequences, they intended something else. If they foresaw that they would cause those consequences then they may be found guilty.
• foresight of consequences: s8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967

  'a court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence;

  • shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being n=a natural and probable consequences of those actions; but
  • shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.
• foresight of consequences, jurrs should consider 2 questions;

  • was death or serious injury a natural consequence of defendants act?
  • did the defendant foresee that consequence a being a natural result of his act?
• Problems with the decision in Woolin case:

  The word infer in s8 is replaced with find but does this improve the clarity of the direction to the jury.
• Mathews and Alleyne- Woolin meant that foresight of consequences is not intention, it is a rule of evidence. If a jury decides that the defendant foresaw the virtual certainty of death or serious injury then they are entitled to find intention but they do not have to do so.
• Subjective recklessness- Cunningham

  When the defendant knows the risk of a consequence but takes the risk anyway.

  This is sufficient for assault and battery, s47 and s20.
• Past problems with the law:

  Used to be 2 levels of recklessness; subjective and objective but the law only recognises subjective recklessness now meaning D must realise the risk of their actions. This was resolved in the case of 'G and another'.
• negligence:

  Negligence has a much lower level of fault to intention and recklessness and what D intended isn't usually relevant however there are 2 exceptions;

  • negligence can occur in some statutory offences such as road traffic offences which makes it an offence to drive without due care and attention
  • one form of manslaughter - gross negligence meaning there must be a very high level of negligence. R V Adamako
• Transferred malice- Latimer

  defendant can be guilty if they intended o commit a similar crime against a a different victim.
• transferred malice- Pembliton

  A completely different type of offence so mens rea is different, may not be guilty.
• coincidence of mens rea and actus reus:

  • Church- mens rea and actus reus were combined through a series of acts.
  • Fagan- continuing act for the actus reus and at some point there is the mens rea then D will be guilty.