Mens Rea – Introduction
What is mens rea?
The mental element of crime: guilty minds
The state of mind the defendant must have had when committing a crime to be found
guilty of committing the crime.
Actus Reus + Mens Rea + No defense
Mens rea helps determine the blameworthiness of the offence
o D1 shoots V1 intending to cause death. V1 dies.
o D2 shoots at a target. V2 Is hiding behind the target, unbeknown to D2. V2
dies.
o It is D1’s state of mind – her intention to cause death – that renders her
blameworthy.
Concerns legal not moral guilt =/ motive
o Yip Chiu – Cheung v the Queen [1995] 1 AC 111
Relates to state of mind re: the actus reus not re: knowingly committing a crime.
R v. Esop (1863) 173 E.R.203.
Mens rea differs according to the offence:
Murder: an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm
o R v. Cunningham [1982] AC 566
o R v. Moloney [1985] AC 905
Criminal damage: intending to destroy or damage [property belonging to another]
or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged
o S.1 Criminal Damage Act 1971
Rape: A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another (B) with his
penis … A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
o S.1 Sexual Offences Act 2003
, Types of mens rea
Intention focus in this topic
Recklessness
Knowledge
Belief discussed during substantive offences
Negligence
Dishonesty
Also look at transferred malic which isn’t a type of mens rea but about mens rea.
Mens Rea – Direct Intention
Different types of intention
Direct intent Focus
Indirect/ oblique intent.
Basic intent
Specific intent intoxication
Ulterior intent – contains additional mens Rea requirement that is additional to the
mens rea attached to causing the actus reus.
What intention is not
Intention ≠ motive
o R v. Cox [1992] 122 BMLR 37.
But
o R v. Steane [1947] KB 997.
o S.28 (1)(a) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 – racially aggravated offence.
Intention ≠premeditation
Intention ≠f foresight (alone)
Where it is D’s purpose to kill, likelihood of success = irrelevant.
o Where D’s primary purpose is unclear/ does not relate to killing … foresight
of death (however high) is only evidence from which the jury might find
intention.
o R v. Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455.
2
What is mens rea?
The mental element of crime: guilty minds
The state of mind the defendant must have had when committing a crime to be found
guilty of committing the crime.
Actus Reus + Mens Rea + No defense
Mens rea helps determine the blameworthiness of the offence
o D1 shoots V1 intending to cause death. V1 dies.
o D2 shoots at a target. V2 Is hiding behind the target, unbeknown to D2. V2
dies.
o It is D1’s state of mind – her intention to cause death – that renders her
blameworthy.
Concerns legal not moral guilt =/ motive
o Yip Chiu – Cheung v the Queen [1995] 1 AC 111
Relates to state of mind re: the actus reus not re: knowingly committing a crime.
R v. Esop (1863) 173 E.R.203.
Mens rea differs according to the offence:
Murder: an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm
o R v. Cunningham [1982] AC 566
o R v. Moloney [1985] AC 905
Criminal damage: intending to destroy or damage [property belonging to another]
or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged
o S.1 Criminal Damage Act 1971
Rape: A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another (B) with his
penis … A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
o S.1 Sexual Offences Act 2003
, Types of mens rea
Intention focus in this topic
Recklessness
Knowledge
Belief discussed during substantive offences
Negligence
Dishonesty
Also look at transferred malic which isn’t a type of mens rea but about mens rea.
Mens Rea – Direct Intention
Different types of intention
Direct intent Focus
Indirect/ oblique intent.
Basic intent
Specific intent intoxication
Ulterior intent – contains additional mens Rea requirement that is additional to the
mens rea attached to causing the actus reus.
What intention is not
Intention ≠ motive
o R v. Cox [1992] 122 BMLR 37.
But
o R v. Steane [1947] KB 997.
o S.28 (1)(a) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 – racially aggravated offence.
Intention ≠premeditation
Intention ≠f foresight (alone)
Where it is D’s purpose to kill, likelihood of success = irrelevant.
o Where D’s primary purpose is unclear/ does not relate to killing … foresight
of death (however high) is only evidence from which the jury might find
intention.
o R v. Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455.
2
