Mens Rea Criminal Law
Mens rea – mental element / “guilty mind”
Jury decides intention
Direct Intention:
Direct intention is where the consequence is wanted or desired by the defendant (D’s aim, purpose
or desire)
D sets out to make the prohibited consequences occur
Motive:
Reason behind it
Why you carried out a certain offence
Irrelevant when deciding on intention
Seems unfair when people have good motives e.g. euthanasia – still murder/manslaughter
Calhaem 1985:
Hired professional killer
Direct intent to kill
Irrelevant that his motive was money
Indirect/Oblique Intention:
Where D does not necessarily desire an outcome but realises that it is almost (but not quite) or
virtually certain to occur as a result of his actions
Oblique intention is something you see clearly, but out of the corner of your eye. The
consequence is...not in the straight line of your purpose, but a side effect that you accept as an
inevitable or ‘certain’ accompaniment of your direct intent. There are twin consequences of the
act, x and y; the doer wants x, and is prepared to accept its unwanted twin y. Oblique intent is, in
other words, a kind of knowledge or realisation...”
- Glanville Williams, Oblique Intention [1987] CLJ 417.
KEY CASES:
- DPP v Smith 1961
- Hyam 1985
- Moloney 1985
- Hancock and Shankland 1986
- Nedrick 1986
- Woolin 1998
- Re A 2000
- Matthews and Alleyne 2003
, Mens Rea Criminal Law
Problematic area (foresight of consequences):
o What degree of foresight (probability) is required before an undesired consequence is
foreseen by the accused as virtually certain to occur as a result of his actions
Maloney (1985):
o D and his stepfather had a shooting contest // stepfather dared/challenged him to fire //
killed his stepfather
o Charged with murder
o Held: quashed conviction, substituting it with manslaughter
o “Natural consequence”
Lord Bridge: Guidelines:
o Jury must consider:
Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of what the accused
did? (objective test)
Did the accused realise that death or really serious injury was a natural
consequence of what the accused did? (subjective test)
If jury answers yes to both these questions, it is not conclusive proof of
intention, but was something from which the jury might infer intention
Hancock and Shankland (1986):
o Dropped concrete block onto motorway from a bridge in order to block the road and
stop a taxi which was carrying a miner to work during the miners’ strike
o One block hit windscreen and killed the driver
o Judge directed jury using Maloney guidelines and he was convicted of murder –
appealed and murder conviction was quashed because the Maloney guidelines did not
consider the matter of probability
o Held: the greater the probability of the consequence, the more likely it was that the
accused foresaw it and more probable that he intended it
Nedrick (1986):
o Pushed lighted material through letter box in order to frighten victim
o Killed 2 ppl
o D convicted of murder – appealed and quashed
o “the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention
unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result
of the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciated(realised) that such was the
case”
Leading case is now Woollin (1998):
o D threw baby towards pram, but it hit wall and died
o D claimed he did not intend this
o Court quashed murder conviction with manslaughter instead
o Lord Steyn – virtual certainty test to be used
o E.g. 90% probability that death would occur
o Model direction in Woollin is not a definition of intention, it is merely guidance to assist
a jury to find intention from foresight
o Therefore, if the jury find that D realised that death was a virtual certainty, finding
allows, but does not require, the jury to conclude that he intended death
Recklessness:
Mens rea – mental element / “guilty mind”
Jury decides intention
Direct Intention:
Direct intention is where the consequence is wanted or desired by the defendant (D’s aim, purpose
or desire)
D sets out to make the prohibited consequences occur
Motive:
Reason behind it
Why you carried out a certain offence
Irrelevant when deciding on intention
Seems unfair when people have good motives e.g. euthanasia – still murder/manslaughter
Calhaem 1985:
Hired professional killer
Direct intent to kill
Irrelevant that his motive was money
Indirect/Oblique Intention:
Where D does not necessarily desire an outcome but realises that it is almost (but not quite) or
virtually certain to occur as a result of his actions
Oblique intention is something you see clearly, but out of the corner of your eye. The
consequence is...not in the straight line of your purpose, but a side effect that you accept as an
inevitable or ‘certain’ accompaniment of your direct intent. There are twin consequences of the
act, x and y; the doer wants x, and is prepared to accept its unwanted twin y. Oblique intent is, in
other words, a kind of knowledge or realisation...”
- Glanville Williams, Oblique Intention [1987] CLJ 417.
KEY CASES:
- DPP v Smith 1961
- Hyam 1985
- Moloney 1985
- Hancock and Shankland 1986
- Nedrick 1986
- Woolin 1998
- Re A 2000
- Matthews and Alleyne 2003
, Mens Rea Criminal Law
Problematic area (foresight of consequences):
o What degree of foresight (probability) is required before an undesired consequence is
foreseen by the accused as virtually certain to occur as a result of his actions
Maloney (1985):
o D and his stepfather had a shooting contest // stepfather dared/challenged him to fire //
killed his stepfather
o Charged with murder
o Held: quashed conviction, substituting it with manslaughter
o “Natural consequence”
Lord Bridge: Guidelines:
o Jury must consider:
Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of what the accused
did? (objective test)
Did the accused realise that death or really serious injury was a natural
consequence of what the accused did? (subjective test)
If jury answers yes to both these questions, it is not conclusive proof of
intention, but was something from which the jury might infer intention
Hancock and Shankland (1986):
o Dropped concrete block onto motorway from a bridge in order to block the road and
stop a taxi which was carrying a miner to work during the miners’ strike
o One block hit windscreen and killed the driver
o Judge directed jury using Maloney guidelines and he was convicted of murder –
appealed and murder conviction was quashed because the Maloney guidelines did not
consider the matter of probability
o Held: the greater the probability of the consequence, the more likely it was that the
accused foresaw it and more probable that he intended it
Nedrick (1986):
o Pushed lighted material through letter box in order to frighten victim
o Killed 2 ppl
o D convicted of murder – appealed and quashed
o “the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention
unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result
of the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciated(realised) that such was the
case”
Leading case is now Woollin (1998):
o D threw baby towards pram, but it hit wall and died
o D claimed he did not intend this
o Court quashed murder conviction with manslaughter instead
o Lord Steyn – virtual certainty test to be used
o E.g. 90% probability that death would occur
o Model direction in Woollin is not a definition of intention, it is merely guidance to assist
a jury to find intention from foresight
o Therefore, if the jury find that D realised that death was a virtual certainty, finding
allows, but does not require, the jury to conclude that he intended death
Recklessness:
