Mens rea
Direct intention
Oblique intention
Subjective recklessness
Mohan (1975) – “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 of his act or not.”
S.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861)
Direct and Oblique intent
In most cases the defendant has direct intention, they intend to bring
about the specific consequences. E.g. D wants to kill V, so stabs them.
There can be situations where the defendant did not desire an outcome.
Their aim or purpose is something different. This is known as oblique
intent.
Oblique intent – where we cannot show direct intention, but there is a very
likely event that the consequences would come from those specific
actions.
Maloney (1985) – the defendant and their stepfather were drinking a lot.
They decided to have a competition to see who could load a gun the
fastest. The stepfather then said D wouldn’t have the ‘guts’ to fire it. The
gun was fired, and the stepfather was dead. The defendant had not aimed
at the stepfather.
Subjective Recklessness
Lower level of mens rea where the defendant knows there is a risk of the
consequence happening but takes that risk – easier to prove.
Cunningham (1957) – D tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty
house in order to steal the money in it. This caused gas to seep into the
house next door, where a woman was affected by it. Cunningham was
charged with an offence under s.23 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861, of maliciously administering a noxious thing. It was held that he was
not guilty since he did not realise the risk of gas escaping. He has not
intended to cause harm.
The offence Cunningham was charged with used the word ‘maliciously’ to
indicate the required mens rea. The court held that this word meant that
to have the necessary mens rea the defendant must have either:
Direct intention
Oblique intention
Subjective recklessness
Mohan (1975) – “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 of his act or not.”
S.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861)
Direct and Oblique intent
In most cases the defendant has direct intention, they intend to bring
about the specific consequences. E.g. D wants to kill V, so stabs them.
There can be situations where the defendant did not desire an outcome.
Their aim or purpose is something different. This is known as oblique
intent.
Oblique intent – where we cannot show direct intention, but there is a very
likely event that the consequences would come from those specific
actions.
Maloney (1985) – the defendant and their stepfather were drinking a lot.
They decided to have a competition to see who could load a gun the
fastest. The stepfather then said D wouldn’t have the ‘guts’ to fire it. The
gun was fired, and the stepfather was dead. The defendant had not aimed
at the stepfather.
Subjective Recklessness
Lower level of mens rea where the defendant knows there is a risk of the
consequence happening but takes that risk – easier to prove.
Cunningham (1957) – D tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty
house in order to steal the money in it. This caused gas to seep into the
house next door, where a woman was affected by it. Cunningham was
charged with an offence under s.23 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861, of maliciously administering a noxious thing. It was held that he was
not guilty since he did not realise the risk of gas escaping. He has not
intended to cause harm.
The offence Cunningham was charged with used the word ‘maliciously’ to
indicate the required mens rea. The court held that this word meant that
to have the necessary mens rea the defendant must have either:
