Mens Rea
The mens rea is the second element alongside the actus reus which must be satisfied in order for
there to be criminal liability.
It refers to the state of mind of the defendant, or their intention, as they committed the act.
There are three distinct levels used to describe the mens rea:
- Subjective Recklessness
- Oblique or Indirect Intention
- Direct Intention
Direct Intent
As alluded to by the name, direct intent is where the defendant makes a decision to bring about a
criminal consequence. This definition comes from the case of R v Mohan.
R v Mohan –
Direct intention is the decision to bring about a criminal consequence, so that it is the defendant’s
aim or purpose.
Indirect or Oblique Intent
There are several elements that need to be dealt with in order to establish whether a defendant had
indirect/oblique intent when committing a crime. Case law, such as that from R v Hancock and
Shankland.
R v Hancock and Shankland –
- Defendants wanted to stop the victim’s car.
- In order to do this, they pushed a concrete block onto the road.
- The driver was hit by the concrete block and killed as a result.
In this case, the defendants had indirect/oblique intent rather than direct intent.
This is because of the fact that the main reason for pushing the concrete block onto the road was to
stop the car, rather than to kill the driver.
Section 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 –
- Defendant will not be regarded as intending or foreseeing a consequence just because it is a
natural or probable consequence of his actions.
- The court will decide if the defendant intended or foresaw the consequence by referring to
all the evidence and making proper inferences.
For murder cases, there is a line of case law that is used when deciding whether a defendant
intended or foresaw death.
Foresight of Consequences
This comes into play where the defendant’s aim was not the prohibited consequence and they
intended something else.
The mens rea is the second element alongside the actus reus which must be satisfied in order for
there to be criminal liability.
It refers to the state of mind of the defendant, or their intention, as they committed the act.
There are three distinct levels used to describe the mens rea:
- Subjective Recklessness
- Oblique or Indirect Intention
- Direct Intention
Direct Intent
As alluded to by the name, direct intent is where the defendant makes a decision to bring about a
criminal consequence. This definition comes from the case of R v Mohan.
R v Mohan –
Direct intention is the decision to bring about a criminal consequence, so that it is the defendant’s
aim or purpose.
Indirect or Oblique Intent
There are several elements that need to be dealt with in order to establish whether a defendant had
indirect/oblique intent when committing a crime. Case law, such as that from R v Hancock and
Shankland.
R v Hancock and Shankland –
- Defendants wanted to stop the victim’s car.
- In order to do this, they pushed a concrete block onto the road.
- The driver was hit by the concrete block and killed as a result.
In this case, the defendants had indirect/oblique intent rather than direct intent.
This is because of the fact that the main reason for pushing the concrete block onto the road was to
stop the car, rather than to kill the driver.
Section 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 –
- Defendant will not be regarded as intending or foreseeing a consequence just because it is a
natural or probable consequence of his actions.
- The court will decide if the defendant intended or foresaw the consequence by referring to
all the evidence and making proper inferences.
For murder cases, there is a line of case law that is used when deciding whether a defendant
intended or foresaw death.
Foresight of Consequences
This comes into play where the defendant’s aim was not the prohibited consequence and they
intended something else.
