MENS REA
Capacity -> Fault -> Conduct -> Defences -> Capacity -> etc…
1) Blame and responsibility
Act is not regarded as guilty unless the mind is guilty
Basic principle = conduct (or causing a consequence) alone should not be enough – also need
“blameworthiness” (exception Strict Liability) -> blameworthiness is predicated on “autonomy”
Different crimes = different mens rea
some crime doesn’t require guilty mind = not always guilty mind, it could be negligence or
recklessness, not always intention to kill, intention to harm the body is enough
Levels of culpability:
1. Intention -> intent can be essence of an offence, intent can be main way law grades offences,
different from motive, no statutory definition of intention
It’s a question of fact, applying subjective test with s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
Direct intention = consequence was the aim, objective or purpose of D – D intends
consequence if he acts with aim or purpose of producing that consequence
Oblique/Indirect intention = virtually certain consequence of which D was aware it was
virtually certain to occur
2. Recklessness -> taking of unjustified risk, person may be reckless as to consequence/
circumstance, distinction from intention & negligence, only subjective recklessness
R v Cunningham: D charged under s23 OAPA 1861 of maliciously administering noxious
substances so as to endanger life
Test -> A person acts recklessly with regard to result when he is aware of a risk that it will
occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk
Objective test Caldwell??
3. Knowledge
4. Negligence -> Lot of crimes rely on negligence = looking for objective test
Consists of falling below standard of ordinary reasonable person. Test is objective, based on
hypothetical person, involves D either doing something reasonable person would not do, or
not doing something which reasonable person would do. Does not matter that D was
unaware that something dangerous might happen, if "reasonable person" would have
realised the risk, and taken steps to avoid it
2) Relationship between AR & MR
MR must exist at same time as AR
General principle has become increasingly flexible
a) Continuing offence approach
The D did AR at one point in time (without the MR) but at a later point had the MR
Fagan v Metropolitan Police -> for assault to be committed, both AR & MR must be present at
same time, not necessary that MR should be present at inception of AR
Capacity -> Fault -> Conduct -> Defences -> Capacity -> etc…
1) Blame and responsibility
Act is not regarded as guilty unless the mind is guilty
Basic principle = conduct (or causing a consequence) alone should not be enough – also need
“blameworthiness” (exception Strict Liability) -> blameworthiness is predicated on “autonomy”
Different crimes = different mens rea
some crime doesn’t require guilty mind = not always guilty mind, it could be negligence or
recklessness, not always intention to kill, intention to harm the body is enough
Levels of culpability:
1. Intention -> intent can be essence of an offence, intent can be main way law grades offences,
different from motive, no statutory definition of intention
It’s a question of fact, applying subjective test with s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
Direct intention = consequence was the aim, objective or purpose of D – D intends
consequence if he acts with aim or purpose of producing that consequence
Oblique/Indirect intention = virtually certain consequence of which D was aware it was
virtually certain to occur
2. Recklessness -> taking of unjustified risk, person may be reckless as to consequence/
circumstance, distinction from intention & negligence, only subjective recklessness
R v Cunningham: D charged under s23 OAPA 1861 of maliciously administering noxious
substances so as to endanger life
Test -> A person acts recklessly with regard to result when he is aware of a risk that it will
occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk
Objective test Caldwell??
3. Knowledge
4. Negligence -> Lot of crimes rely on negligence = looking for objective test
Consists of falling below standard of ordinary reasonable person. Test is objective, based on
hypothetical person, involves D either doing something reasonable person would not do, or
not doing something which reasonable person would do. Does not matter that D was
unaware that something dangerous might happen, if "reasonable person" would have
realised the risk, and taken steps to avoid it
2) Relationship between AR & MR
MR must exist at same time as AR
General principle has become increasingly flexible
a) Continuing offence approach
The D did AR at one point in time (without the MR) but at a later point had the MR
Fagan v Metropolitan Police -> for assault to be committed, both AR & MR must be present at
same time, not necessary that MR should be present at inception of AR
