Mens Rea
Purpose;
- Links an individual’s actions to their mindset
- Nothing to do with evil or motive, but about whether the defendant linked their actions to the
consequences (in many cases)
- Mens rea varies per offence, and strict liability offences do not require mens rea – e.g. Driving or being
in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, contrary to s5 Road
Traffic Act 1988
- However, the offences that we are studying across this course require a mens rea
- Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm: An assault, occasioning actual bodily harm with intention to
carry out an assault or battery OR recklessness to carry out an assault or battery
- Murder: Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace with the intention to kill or cause
GBH
- Theft: Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive
- Criminal Damage: Without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property belonging to another intending
to destroy/damage property or being reckless as to whether the property is damaged/destroyed
Requirements;
- Intention
- Recklessness
- Dishonesty
- Deception
- Knowingly
- Negligently
Intention
What does the word intention mean to you?
The most culpable form of mens rea – the defendant needs to intend that his act produces the prohibited
consequences
This can be broken down into two forms of intent
- Direct intention
Intention is “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, a particular consequence,
no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not” – Mohan [1976]
In short, direct intent requires the outcome to be the defendant’s aim or purpose.
Desire is irrelevant. Motive is separate from intention. Confirmed in Steane [1947]
Intention can be express or implied
- Indirect or oblique intention
The prohibited behaviour was not necessarily the defendant’s aim and purpose, but was a virtually certain side
effect from the defendant’s action.
The defendant does not need to foresee the consequences as probable – Moloney [1985]
Confirmed in Hancock and Shankland [1986], but became unclear how a judge was to direct a jury.
Nedrick [1986]
Woollin [1999]
Woollin confirmed in Matthews and Alleyne [2003]
Recklessness … an ever changing test
R v Cunningham [1957]
Commissioner of Metropolitan Police v Caldwell [1982]
Purpose;
- Links an individual’s actions to their mindset
- Nothing to do with evil or motive, but about whether the defendant linked their actions to the
consequences (in many cases)
- Mens rea varies per offence, and strict liability offences do not require mens rea – e.g. Driving or being
in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, contrary to s5 Road
Traffic Act 1988
- However, the offences that we are studying across this course require a mens rea
- Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm: An assault, occasioning actual bodily harm with intention to
carry out an assault or battery OR recklessness to carry out an assault or battery
- Murder: Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace with the intention to kill or cause
GBH
- Theft: Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive
- Criminal Damage: Without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property belonging to another intending
to destroy/damage property or being reckless as to whether the property is damaged/destroyed
Requirements;
- Intention
- Recklessness
- Dishonesty
- Deception
- Knowingly
- Negligently
Intention
What does the word intention mean to you?
The most culpable form of mens rea – the defendant needs to intend that his act produces the prohibited
consequences
This can be broken down into two forms of intent
- Direct intention
Intention is “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, a particular consequence,
no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not” – Mohan [1976]
In short, direct intent requires the outcome to be the defendant’s aim or purpose.
Desire is irrelevant. Motive is separate from intention. Confirmed in Steane [1947]
Intention can be express or implied
- Indirect or oblique intention
The prohibited behaviour was not necessarily the defendant’s aim and purpose, but was a virtually certain side
effect from the defendant’s action.
The defendant does not need to foresee the consequences as probable – Moloney [1985]
Confirmed in Hancock and Shankland [1986], but became unclear how a judge was to direct a jury.
Nedrick [1986]
Woollin [1999]
Woollin confirmed in Matthews and Alleyne [2003]
Recklessness … an ever changing test
R v Cunningham [1957]
Commissioner of Metropolitan Police v Caldwell [1982]
