Men's rea

• Mens rea


  The internal elements of the crime i.e. the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the offence
• Mens rea


  • Some offences require intention as part of the mens rea e.g. for murder the mens rea is an intention to kill or cause serious injury
  • Some offences can be committed recklessly i.e. intention does not have to be proved by the prosecution e.g. assault and battery
  • Some offences can be those of strict liability when mens rea is not required to be proved in some aspect of the actus reus by the prosecution
• Intention


  Has nothing to do with motive - someone may have a motive to help those in need by stealing from the rich to give to the poor (robin hood principle) but they still intend to steal and therefore an offence has been committed
• Types of intent


  • Direct intent - the intent is obvious as it is the defendant's purpose to carry out the offence
  • Oblique intent - the defendant argues that it is not their purpose to carry out the consequences of the offence
• Oblique intent


  1. Defendant argues it is not their purpose to carry out the consequences

  2. Courts focus on foresight of consequences, considering probability
• The Criminal Justice Act 1967 Section 8 stated that a court or jury shall not be bound to infer intention or foresight of result from it being a natural and probable consequence, but shall decide based on all the evidence
• Moloney guidelines


  • 1. Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant's act?
  • 2. Did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural result of their act?
• The Moloney guidelines were criticised as they made no reference to probability as required by the Criminal Justice Act 1967
• Nedrick test


  The defendant must appreciate that it was virtually certain that their act would cause death or serious injury
• The Nedrick test is part subjective and part objective, and is the best test to use as it requires death or serious harm to be a virtual certainty
• Woollin case


  The court decided the jury should be entitled to find intention rather than just infer it, and that foresight of consequences is the same as intention
• There have been different interpretations of Woollin, with some courts believing foresight of consequences is intention, and others believing it is only evidence to consider
• Intention has never been properly defined by Parliament, leading to different interpretations over time and uncertainty in the law
• Mens rea can also exist prior to the actus reus, as long as it continues until the actus reus takes place
• A person who intends to commit an offence but changes their mind will still be guilty if they take steps towards committing the crime
• If someone does not intend to cause harm but knows there is a risk of causing harm, this may constitute recklessness
• Reckless behaviour involves taking unjustifiable risks, while negligent behaviour involves failing to exercise reasonable care
• In R v G, the defendant was found guilty of murder despite his claim that he had no intention to kill because he knew there was a high probability of death from stabbing his victim multiple times.
• Causation refers to the relationship between the defendant’s actions (actus reus) and the resultant injury/harm suffered by the victim (consequences).
• In R v Cunningham (1982), Lord Diplock stated that "the prosecution must prove that the accused either intended or was aware that his conduct might result in the prohibited consequence"