Introduction to Mens Rea Mens Rea in relation to Actus
Reus
= internal element: the guilty mind STRICT LIABILITY
• degree of fault: = no req for MR
blameworthiness/culpability (AR w/ no corresponding MR)
Conduct = voluntary 1. Strict/absolute offences
Circumstance/Result = =Only MR req: act Voluntary
a. Intention - No MR as to other element of off
b. Recklessness
• Majority: Regulatory offences (quasi-
Sweet v Parsley [1970] crim)
No longer lived in farmhouse, rented rooms Justification:
out to tenants, retained room but only went - not that serious
occasionally to collect mail + rent Attract limited punishment to reflect lack of
- Cannabis resin found on premises MR
MR required where the offence is a ‘true Problems:
crime’ (not regulatory offence) - Lack respect for principle of
• IF section silent as to MR: autonomy (offences punish D for AR
presumption that to give effect to the w/out regard to D’s choice to bring it
will of Par, must read in words approp about: state of mind)
to require MR - not all SL = quasi
----------------------------------------------------------- 2. Strict liability elements
IMPORTANCE OF MR (more common)
= offences which req MR for certain AR
X looking at different degrees of fault = elements (not all)
respecting individuals as autonomous + - Where not req, liab strict
responsible agents
(Fairness imp in distrib of blame) • Less controversial then absolute
offences w/out MR as to
Legitimises application of crim liab circumstances + results
Responsible for conduct + consequences = HWVR autonomy issue
can be blamed - Liab possible in absence of choice to
- Made choice to commit crime essential part of what D is being
autonomously blamed for
HWVR
Limits application of crim liab
, Only blamed for actions + conseq which they • Counter-weighed x defences to
can be held responsible for otherwise SL offences
a. due diligence
----------------------------------------------------------- - took all reasonable steps to avoid offence
b. reasonable excuse
SUBJECTIVE MR
= Culpability based on D’s own state of mind • B.o.P shifts to D: prove lack of
- Desired (intention) + foresaw culpability
(recklessness)
• SL ONLY applied x court if obvious in
OBJECTIVE MR drafting of offence that Parliament
= categories establish culpability x comparing intended it
D’s conduct, perspective + decisions w/ - PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF MR
objective standard of care (RP) -----------------------------------------------------------
- Should have thought + done
(negligence) ULTERIOR MR
----------------------------------------------------------- = MR element does not have corresponding
AR element
Four Functions of MR – Winnie Chan
‘Ulterior intention’
• Establish the moral innocence/guilt of
D’s conduct • MR requirement not correspond to
• Articulating + notifying limits of conduct, circumstance / result
freedom element of AR
• Secure fair warning: ensure have suff
advance notice that risking crim law • No need to do AR
• Mediating role: protect potential V + - intend/reckless as to doing AR
preserve liberties of potential D - w/out needing for it to actually happen
(expl why negl rarely used in serious
offences) a. Criminal Damage
----------------------------------------------------------- ELEMENT AR MR
Conduct A/O = result Voluntary
PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF MR Circumstanc Property Intention
e damaged /
Where offence sets out certain AR + silent as belonging to Reckless
to MR = presumption MR required as to the another
element Result Damage / Intention
Destruction /
B (a minor) v DPP [2000] of Property Reckless
Reus
= internal element: the guilty mind STRICT LIABILITY
• degree of fault: = no req for MR
blameworthiness/culpability (AR w/ no corresponding MR)
Conduct = voluntary 1. Strict/absolute offences
Circumstance/Result = =Only MR req: act Voluntary
a. Intention - No MR as to other element of off
b. Recklessness
• Majority: Regulatory offences (quasi-
Sweet v Parsley [1970] crim)
No longer lived in farmhouse, rented rooms Justification:
out to tenants, retained room but only went - not that serious
occasionally to collect mail + rent Attract limited punishment to reflect lack of
- Cannabis resin found on premises MR
MR required where the offence is a ‘true Problems:
crime’ (not regulatory offence) - Lack respect for principle of
• IF section silent as to MR: autonomy (offences punish D for AR
presumption that to give effect to the w/out regard to D’s choice to bring it
will of Par, must read in words approp about: state of mind)
to require MR - not all SL = quasi
----------------------------------------------------------- 2. Strict liability elements
IMPORTANCE OF MR (more common)
= offences which req MR for certain AR
X looking at different degrees of fault = elements (not all)
respecting individuals as autonomous + - Where not req, liab strict
responsible agents
(Fairness imp in distrib of blame) • Less controversial then absolute
offences w/out MR as to
Legitimises application of crim liab circumstances + results
Responsible for conduct + consequences = HWVR autonomy issue
can be blamed - Liab possible in absence of choice to
- Made choice to commit crime essential part of what D is being
autonomously blamed for
HWVR
Limits application of crim liab
, Only blamed for actions + conseq which they • Counter-weighed x defences to
can be held responsible for otherwise SL offences
a. due diligence
----------------------------------------------------------- - took all reasonable steps to avoid offence
b. reasonable excuse
SUBJECTIVE MR
= Culpability based on D’s own state of mind • B.o.P shifts to D: prove lack of
- Desired (intention) + foresaw culpability
(recklessness)
• SL ONLY applied x court if obvious in
OBJECTIVE MR drafting of offence that Parliament
= categories establish culpability x comparing intended it
D’s conduct, perspective + decisions w/ - PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF MR
objective standard of care (RP) -----------------------------------------------------------
- Should have thought + done
(negligence) ULTERIOR MR
----------------------------------------------------------- = MR element does not have corresponding
AR element
Four Functions of MR – Winnie Chan
‘Ulterior intention’
• Establish the moral innocence/guilt of
D’s conduct • MR requirement not correspond to
• Articulating + notifying limits of conduct, circumstance / result
freedom element of AR
• Secure fair warning: ensure have suff
advance notice that risking crim law • No need to do AR
• Mediating role: protect potential V + - intend/reckless as to doing AR
preserve liberties of potential D - w/out needing for it to actually happen
(expl why negl rarely used in serious
offences) a. Criminal Damage
----------------------------------------------------------- ELEMENT AR MR
Conduct A/O = result Voluntary
PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF MR Circumstanc Property Intention
e damaged /
Where offence sets out certain AR + silent as belonging to Reckless
to MR = presumption MR required as to the another
element Result Damage / Intention
Destruction /
B (a minor) v DPP [2000] of Property Reckless
