Mens rea: intention and recklessness
Guilty mind- internal elements relating to d’s state of mind/ fault.
Unfair to criminalise or punish people who aren’t at fault in some way.
State of mind. Way someone is doing something.
‘intentionally’. ‘recklessly’. ‘knowing’. ‘believing’.
Less common MR terms: in order of fault
Knowledge.
Belief.
Wilful blindness.
Dishonesty.
Negligence (gross negligence)
Examples of MR:
Criminal damage act 1971 S1 MR- destroying of damaging property belonging to another.
Offences against the person act 1861 S20 MR- maliciously.
Elements can be subjective or objective:
SUBJECTIVE
What d himself was thinking at time he committed AR.
Did d intend result? Did d foresee result? D’s point of view.
OBJECTIVE
What hypothetical reasonable person would have thought.
Express objective MR from reasonable person’s point of view.
Subjective (d’s own view- what court finds d was thinking)
Intention: D’s aim or purpose is to cause prohibited consequence.
Recklessness: D is aware of risk of prohibited consequence.
Objective (court’s view on how d ought to have behaved)
Gross negligence: D falls far below standard of expected reasonable person. Extreme
carelessness.
Negligence: D falls below standard expected of reasonable person. Average carelessness.
Proving d’s state of mind:
S8 Criminal Justice act 1967: “A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an
offence shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence,
drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances”.
Transferred malice MR.
What if d intends to kill one person but kills another instead.
AR and MR targeted at different people.
Person to person transfer- succeeds- Latimer, Mitchell
Property to property transfer- succeeds.
Limitations: Pembilton.
Person to property- fails.
Property to person- fails.
Guilty mind- internal elements relating to d’s state of mind/ fault.
Unfair to criminalise or punish people who aren’t at fault in some way.
State of mind. Way someone is doing something.
‘intentionally’. ‘recklessly’. ‘knowing’. ‘believing’.
Less common MR terms: in order of fault
Knowledge.
Belief.
Wilful blindness.
Dishonesty.
Negligence (gross negligence)
Examples of MR:
Criminal damage act 1971 S1 MR- destroying of damaging property belonging to another.
Offences against the person act 1861 S20 MR- maliciously.
Elements can be subjective or objective:
SUBJECTIVE
What d himself was thinking at time he committed AR.
Did d intend result? Did d foresee result? D’s point of view.
OBJECTIVE
What hypothetical reasonable person would have thought.
Express objective MR from reasonable person’s point of view.
Subjective (d’s own view- what court finds d was thinking)
Intention: D’s aim or purpose is to cause prohibited consequence.
Recklessness: D is aware of risk of prohibited consequence.
Objective (court’s view on how d ought to have behaved)
Gross negligence: D falls far below standard of expected reasonable person. Extreme
carelessness.
Negligence: D falls below standard expected of reasonable person. Average carelessness.
Proving d’s state of mind:
S8 Criminal Justice act 1967: “A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an
offence shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence,
drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances”.
Transferred malice MR.
What if d intends to kill one person but kills another instead.
AR and MR targeted at different people.
Person to person transfer- succeeds- Latimer, Mitchell
Property to property transfer- succeeds.
Limitations: Pembilton.
Person to property- fails.
Property to person- fails.
