Mens Rea

• Mens rea


  guilty mind
• Once actus reus has been proved by establishing a chain of causation then what?

  The prosecution must prove D had some level of culpability because of the principle ‘innocent until proven guilty’ which was established in Woolmington v DPP 1935 and is known as ‘The Woolmington Principle’
• What are the 3 levels of mens rea?

  • intention (highest level)
  • recklessness (currently subjective)
  • negligence (eg gross negligence manslaughter)
• What are specific intent crimes?

  Those for which it must be proved that D intended the result eg murder, attempted crimes, voluntary manslaughter , s18 GBH, burglary and theft
• What are basic intent crimes?

  Those for which it need only be proved that D was reckless as to the result eg involuntary manslaughter, s20 GBH, ABH, assault, battery, rape - consent or not - intent doesn't need to be proven
• intention can be split into direct intent and oblique (indirect) intent, what is the difference?

  Direct intent is the intended outcome that the individual aims to achieve, while oblique (indirect) intent is an unintended secondary consequence that occurs as a result of the individual's actions.
• why is direct intent not problematic?


  it's very obvious so there's no argument as D was intending the consequence
• Mohan 1975?


  Defined intention as 'a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power (the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not.' In practice this means motive is irrelevant, the decision to perform the action which brought about the consequence is the important factor.
• Oblique intent definition?

  A situation where the consequence is foreseen by D as virtually certain, although not desired for its own sake, and D goes ahead with his actions anyway. Proving this is difficult so the courts have concentrated on the principle of 'foresight of consequences'
• Describe oblique intent in terms of a vase of flowers

  If you cut flowers from your garden to put in a vase in your house, you are doing it because you like flowers and want them to make your house look nice. But as a result the flowers will die as it's a natural, probable cause of the action despite my intention being other than the result of them dying
• When can foresight of consequences be evidence of oblique intention?


  If the accused knew that those consequences would definitely happen, it's not sufficient that D merely foresaw a possibility of a particular occurrence otherwise this would be recklessness and not intention
• Where is the starting point for intention mentioned?

  Criminal Justice Act 1967: intention can't simply be assumed if it was a 'natural and probable consequence of those actions' so they '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'
• Hyam 1975 (petrol through the letterbox)

  D hadn't meant to kill Mrs Booth's daughters in the ensuing fire but had foreseen death or GBH as a highly probable result of her actions - the jury can infer D intended the result due to it's 'highly probable' nature
• Moloney 1985


  When D accidentally shot his stepfather with a gun this case created 2 questions: was death or serious injury a natural consequence of D's actions? Did D foresee the consequence as being a natural result of his act?
• From the case of Moloney the Moloney Guidelines were created but what was the major issue?


  It changed the test for oblique intent by missing out 'probable' in both questions so now it must only be a natural result
• Hancock and Shankland 1986


  DDs were striking miners who threw a concrete block from a bridge onto the motorway, striking a taxi and killing the driver. DDs argued they intended to block the motorway, not to kill or cause GBH but the trial judge directed the jury on the basis of Lord Bridge's statements in Moloney eg Moloney Guidelines. Because 'the more likely a consequence the more likely it was intended', it can be inferred
• Nedrick 1986


  D intended to frighten the owner of the house by pouring paraffin through the letterbox and setting it alight, causing a child to burn to death. The original trial was heard before the Moloney judgement but the appeal of 1986 for this trial modified the Moloney judgement so instead of natural and probable it was raised to virtually certain
• What is the issues with the modification of Moloney from Nedrick?

  Potentially oblique intent has turned to direct intent which is bad for prosecution
• Woollin 1998 LEADING CASE

  D threw his 3 year old son towards his pram, on appeal of his conviction it was said if they believed D 'must have realised and appreciated when he threw that child that there was a substantial risk that he would cause serious injury to it, then it would be open to you to find that he intended to cause injury to the child and you should convict him of murder'
• What is problematic about Woollin?

  How do you determine 'substantial risk'? This potentially borders on recklessness more so than oblique intent
• How is oblique intent tested now?

  HL confirmed the virtual certain test in Nedrick as it was the trial judges mistake in Woollin to say 'substantial risk'
• Woollin was thought to have clarified the law on oblique intent however the question remained is foresight of consequence evidence of intention or intention itself?


  Re A suggests that knowing one of the conjoined twins would be killed (foresight of consequence) was intention. However in Matthews and Alleyne it was deemed that Ds actions in beating and dropping V into the river off the bridge, despite being told by V that he couldn't swim, that caused V to drown despite having foresight of consequence it was only evidence of intention
• What do the cases show about proving intent?


  It's hard to know whether an action is intentional between it being probable, highly probable or virtually certain, especially regarding oblique intent because the law is so tight, making it hard to prosecute
• What is recklessness and why is it problematic?

  A person is reckless if when carrying out an act there's a risk of a certain consequence and the person took the risk anyway. But it's problematic when questioning who should have recognised the risk - D or the 'reasonable, sober person' (subjective or objective?)
• • Cunningham - subjective recklessness whether such harm occurs or not
  • Caldwell - acquitted if Cunningham was applied as he was drunk and couldn't see the risk/consequences- Cunningham reaffirmed by HL but introduced alternate recklessness based on D's failure to recognise a risk obvious to the reasonable person
  • Elliot v C applied Caldwell and as 'reasonable person' meant a healthy sober adult D was found guilty
  • R v G - 'a person acts recklessly... when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist' or 'when he is aware of a risk that it will occur and it is... unreasonable to take'
• What is recklessness now and why is this important?


  Subjective recklessness which is important as we are trying to prove the level of guilt of the individual so it must be subjective as they must have the guilty mind