Criminal Law – Mens Rea
Mental element of a crime - ‘guilty mind’ (legal, not morale).
AR + MR – A possible defence = an offence.
Criminal law concerned with wrongful behaviour e.g. Child and Ormerod
D1 – shoots V1 intending to cause death.
D2 – shoots at a target at a shooting range – accidentally kills V2 (unknown) is behind the target.
D1 – state of mind intention to cause death renders them blameworthy.
MR differs according the offence.
Murder – Cunningham HOL – Moloney – an intention to kill or cause GBH.
Criminal Damage s(1) C.D.A 1971 – intending to destroy or damage (property belonging to another)
or being reckless as to whether any such damage property would be destroyed / damaged.
Rape s.1 Sexual Offences Act 03 – intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another
with his penis… A does not reasonably believe that B consent.
Different types of MR
Intention
Recklessness
Knowledge
Belief
Negligence
Dishonesty
Transferred Malice – not a type of MR but about MR.
Different Types of Intention
Direct intent
Indirect / oblique intent
Basic Intent – intoxication
Specific Intent – intoxication
Ulterior intent e.g. s.18 OAPA 1861 – wounding with intent to do GBH.
Intention is NOT Motive!
Cox 1992 – D injected V with lethal substances with ‘good’ motive of ending her suffering – still
intended to kill – still convicted.
Yip Chiu-Cheung 1995 – D conspiring to export drugs with E – who ended up being a undercover
police – E – had a good motive therefore couldn’t be convicted as you two people need to conspire
together – with D tried to argue didn’t have – D found guilty.
, Vs
Steane – exceptions – actor in Germany when WW2 told by G that must promote the enemy on the
radio or they’ll kills his family – not found guilty of assisting of enemy – wrong only had intention of
assisting his family is what the courts argued – would’ve been better to use the defence of duress.
s.28(1)(a) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 – ‘racially aggravated’: offence motivated (wholly or partly)
by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group.
Intention is not premeditation.
Direct Intention
‘Golden Rule’ – to give intention its ordinary meaning.
Lord Bridge, Moloney AC – The golden rule should be that the judge should avoid any elaboration or
paraphrase of what is meant by intent and leave it to the jury’s good sense to decide whether the
accused acted with necessary intent.
‘Ordinary’ Meaning = D’s aim or purpose (Cunliffe v Goodman; Mohan)
Indirect Intention
Used Rarely – MD 2004 – Child cruelty ruled administered drug to son.
BUT – in rare cases, D might still legally intend a result that is not their aim or purpose.
Glanville Williams –
Direct intention is where the consequences is what you are aiming at.
Oblique intention is something you see clearly but out of the corner of your eye … a side-effect that
you accept as an inevitable or ‘certain’ accompaniment of your direct intent.
- Can apply the rule of success or failure type.
Historical Development of indirect intention
Hyam 1975 – high probability – aim or purpose to destroy property – also killed family in house fire –
MR for murder? – Lord Diplock – did she have foresight that serious bodily harm was a high
probability? – sufficient MR for murder.
Moloney 1985 - ‘natural consequence’. – race who could load the shot gun the quickest – the father
in law said ‘if you got the guts pull the trigger’ – killed. D said wasn’t aim or purpose to kill, it was to
win the game. Foresight of high probability in hyam is wrong – you need to ask jury was the Death or
serious injury the natural consequence of D’s act? And did the D foresee it as a natural consequence
– quashed conviction of murder. Was the outcome a moral certainty? Likelihood of it happening – a
little short from overwhelming. – vague term.
Hancock and Shankland – ‘natural and probable consequence’ – miners on strikes annoyed at the
miners that were still working. Threatened the V with nearly hitting him with concrete block – aim or
purpose was to scare the miners – Lord Scarman – the greater the probability of consequence more
likely it was foreseen – if foreseen more likely intended.
Nedrick – aim to scare occupant s- child died – jury found foresight for the consequence with
intention – appeal overturned – manslaughter. Lord Lane – jury are not entitled to infer necessary
Mental element of a crime - ‘guilty mind’ (legal, not morale).
AR + MR – A possible defence = an offence.
Criminal law concerned with wrongful behaviour e.g. Child and Ormerod
D1 – shoots V1 intending to cause death.
D2 – shoots at a target at a shooting range – accidentally kills V2 (unknown) is behind the target.
D1 – state of mind intention to cause death renders them blameworthy.
MR differs according the offence.
Murder – Cunningham HOL – Moloney – an intention to kill or cause GBH.
Criminal Damage s(1) C.D.A 1971 – intending to destroy or damage (property belonging to another)
or being reckless as to whether any such damage property would be destroyed / damaged.
Rape s.1 Sexual Offences Act 03 – intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another
with his penis… A does not reasonably believe that B consent.
Different types of MR
Intention
Recklessness
Knowledge
Belief
Negligence
Dishonesty
Transferred Malice – not a type of MR but about MR.
Different Types of Intention
Direct intent
Indirect / oblique intent
Basic Intent – intoxication
Specific Intent – intoxication
Ulterior intent e.g. s.18 OAPA 1861 – wounding with intent to do GBH.
Intention is NOT Motive!
Cox 1992 – D injected V with lethal substances with ‘good’ motive of ending her suffering – still
intended to kill – still convicted.
Yip Chiu-Cheung 1995 – D conspiring to export drugs with E – who ended up being a undercover
police – E – had a good motive therefore couldn’t be convicted as you two people need to conspire
together – with D tried to argue didn’t have – D found guilty.
, Vs
Steane – exceptions – actor in Germany when WW2 told by G that must promote the enemy on the
radio or they’ll kills his family – not found guilty of assisting of enemy – wrong only had intention of
assisting his family is what the courts argued – would’ve been better to use the defence of duress.
s.28(1)(a) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 – ‘racially aggravated’: offence motivated (wholly or partly)
by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group.
Intention is not premeditation.
Direct Intention
‘Golden Rule’ – to give intention its ordinary meaning.
Lord Bridge, Moloney AC – The golden rule should be that the judge should avoid any elaboration or
paraphrase of what is meant by intent and leave it to the jury’s good sense to decide whether the
accused acted with necessary intent.
‘Ordinary’ Meaning = D’s aim or purpose (Cunliffe v Goodman; Mohan)
Indirect Intention
Used Rarely – MD 2004 – Child cruelty ruled administered drug to son.
BUT – in rare cases, D might still legally intend a result that is not their aim or purpose.
Glanville Williams –
Direct intention is where the consequences is what you are aiming at.
Oblique intention is something you see clearly but out of the corner of your eye … a side-effect that
you accept as an inevitable or ‘certain’ accompaniment of your direct intent.
- Can apply the rule of success or failure type.
Historical Development of indirect intention
Hyam 1975 – high probability – aim or purpose to destroy property – also killed family in house fire –
MR for murder? – Lord Diplock – did she have foresight that serious bodily harm was a high
probability? – sufficient MR for murder.
Moloney 1985 - ‘natural consequence’. – race who could load the shot gun the quickest – the father
in law said ‘if you got the guts pull the trigger’ – killed. D said wasn’t aim or purpose to kill, it was to
win the game. Foresight of high probability in hyam is wrong – you need to ask jury was the Death or
serious injury the natural consequence of D’s act? And did the D foresee it as a natural consequence
– quashed conviction of murder. Was the outcome a moral certainty? Likelihood of it happening – a
little short from overwhelming. – vague term.
Hancock and Shankland – ‘natural and probable consequence’ – miners on strikes annoyed at the
miners that were still working. Threatened the V with nearly hitting him with concrete block – aim or
purpose was to scare the miners – Lord Scarman – the greater the probability of consequence more
likely it was foreseen – if foreseen more likely intended.
Nedrick – aim to scare occupant s- child died – jury found foresight for the consequence with
intention – appeal overturned – manslaughter. Lord Lane – jury are not entitled to infer necessary
