Criminal Law| Mens Rea
What is Mens Rea?
Prohibited behaviour (actus reus) must be accompanied with a blameworthy state of mind
(mens rea).
The mens rea required is dependent on the crime in question.
Must be specific about mens rea.
Mens rea = usually ‘intention’ or ‘recklessness’
Intention (case study of murder, although the principles are of general application)
Mens rea for murder is ‘malice aforethought’.
This was defined in R v Vickers as:
1.) Intention to kill (express malice) or;
2.) Intention to cause GBH (implied malice)
In DPP v Smith, GBH was defined as ‘really serious harm’
R v Saunders held that ‘really’ made no difference, so defined GBH as ‘serious harm’.
Mercy killing is not a defence in English law. (R v Inglis)
Direct Intention
Most common type – always consider first.
Test for direct intention = subjective.
Lord Bridge in R v Moloney – jury’s task to decide intention. The word ‘intention’ should be
given its ordinary meaning.
D can intend an act because it is the purpose of his act – doesn’t matter if the chances of
achieving his purpose are slim, intention still satisfied.
Consequence = what the defendant wants to happen.
In order to determine direct intent, the jury should consider whether D’s aim/purpose was to
commit the actus reus.
Approach of determining direct intent is of general application (R v Moloney)
Oblique Intention
Rarely a case where it is necessary to consider oblique intention. (Lord Bridge in R v Moloney)
Judge needs to elaborate on the meaning of intention.
This could occur where intention is the only form of mens rea available – where there is an
option of recklessness, do not use oblique intention – consider recklessness as it’s easier to
prove.
Where D’s purpose for acting is not to commit the actus reus for the crime for which he is being
charged, you would consider D’s oblique intention.
Page 1 of 4
What is Mens Rea?
Prohibited behaviour (actus reus) must be accompanied with a blameworthy state of mind
(mens rea).
The mens rea required is dependent on the crime in question.
Must be specific about mens rea.
Mens rea = usually ‘intention’ or ‘recklessness’
Intention (case study of murder, although the principles are of general application)
Mens rea for murder is ‘malice aforethought’.
This was defined in R v Vickers as:
1.) Intention to kill (express malice) or;
2.) Intention to cause GBH (implied malice)
In DPP v Smith, GBH was defined as ‘really serious harm’
R v Saunders held that ‘really’ made no difference, so defined GBH as ‘serious harm’.
Mercy killing is not a defence in English law. (R v Inglis)
Direct Intention
Most common type – always consider first.
Test for direct intention = subjective.
Lord Bridge in R v Moloney – jury’s task to decide intention. The word ‘intention’ should be
given its ordinary meaning.
D can intend an act because it is the purpose of his act – doesn’t matter if the chances of
achieving his purpose are slim, intention still satisfied.
Consequence = what the defendant wants to happen.
In order to determine direct intent, the jury should consider whether D’s aim/purpose was to
commit the actus reus.
Approach of determining direct intent is of general application (R v Moloney)
Oblique Intention
Rarely a case where it is necessary to consider oblique intention. (Lord Bridge in R v Moloney)
Judge needs to elaborate on the meaning of intention.
This could occur where intention is the only form of mens rea available – where there is an
option of recklessness, do not use oblique intention – consider recklessness as it’s easier to
prove.
Where D’s purpose for acting is not to commit the actus reus for the crime for which he is being
charged, you would consider D’s oblique intention.
Page 1 of 4
