Mens Rea

• Mens Rea


  Motive is irrelevant to mens rea.

  There are three different types of Mens Rea. Direct intention (most serious), indirect intention and then Recklessness (least serious).
• Direct Intention

  This is the defendant's aim or purpose to cause the end result.
• Direct Intention - R v Mohan


  Case facts: Mohan was being pulled over by the Police and in a panic he accelerated to escape. The police thought he intended to cause harm.

  Points of Law: Mohan wasn't guilty of assault because his direct intention was to escape not to cause harm.
• Indirect Intention


  This is where the end result is virtually certain to occur.
• Indirect Intention - R v Woolin

  Case facts: The defendant there his baby across the room and into the cot. The baby hit the wall and died.

  Points of law: Woolin was found guilty of murder by indirect intention. It was virtually certain that throwing a baby across the room would result in serious harm or death.
• Indirect Intention - R v Nedrick 


  Case Facts: Nedrick fancies a man who fancied another women. She decided to set fire to this lady's house to scare her off. The woman's daughter was home and she died.

  Points of law: It was virtually certain that a house would have people inside it and that her actions would result in serious injury or death. Her direct intention was to scare the woman but she was found guilty of murder by indirect intention.
• Recklessness


  This is when the defendant foresees a risk but goes ahead anyway.
• Recklessness - R v Cunningham


  Case Facts: The defendant broke into a house to steal a gas meter. As he stole it, it caused a gas leak, poisoning one of the neighbours.

  Points of law: The defendant claimed he wasn't aware of the risk. Because he couldn't foresee the risk, he was not guilty of the poisoning.
• Recklessness - R v Spratt


  Case Facts: Spratt lived in a block of flats and fired a BB gun out of his window for fun. The bullet ricocheted hit a girl on the ground outside.

  Points of Law: He couldn't have known the bullet would ricochet, therefore he couldn't foresee that there was a risk of it hitting someone. Not guilty.
• Transferred Malice


  This is where the Mens Rea of one case can be transferred to another.
• Transferred Malice - R v Latimer


  Case Facts: The defendant had an argument with a man when he took his belt off and swung it at the other man. The man ducked and the belt hit a lady and injured her.

  Points of Law: Although his mens rea was to hit the man and his actus reas was hitting the woman, by transferring his mens rea from the man to the woman, he is then found guilty.

  HOWEVER, this only works when the Mens rea and the actus reas are for similar offences.
• Transferred Malice - R v Pembliton 


  Case facts: Defendant was having an argument outside a pub and he threw a rock at the group of people. He missed and it broke a window.

  Points of Law: The defendant was not found guilty of anything because his mens rea was to cause injury to a group of men and his actus reus was an offence against a property. The mens rea cannot be transferred as it is for a completely different crime.
• Transferred Malice - R v Mitchel


  Case Facts: Defendant pushed in a queue in a post office. An old man told him off and he pushed the old man over. He fell into an old lady who fell over and died.

  Points of Law: By transferring the mens rea from the old man to the old lady, the defendant then becomes a more than trivial cause of her death.

  He is guilty of manslaughter.