Lecture 4 – Men’s Rea
5th October 2022
Men’s rea – guilty mind. The other pillar of classic English criminal liability.
For an offence both actus reus and men’s rea must be satisfied.
Culpability and blameworthiness of actions are what distinguish this from actus reus.
There are different forms of Men’s Rea
No fault – usually with attract no criminal sanction. Generally, not blame worthy for the
consequences and couldn’t be found liable.
Negligence – where someone has formed below the standard that is expected of them.
Usually breaks areas of civil law. Not a criminal state of mind, generally but there can be
exceptions.
Recklessness – this is generally a criminal state of mind. Where a risk has been expected
but nothing been done regardless of this. Essentially foreseeability.
Intention – most blameworthy type of men’s rea. Intention has a motive, and this is criminal
intention. This could be direct or indirect intention.
Men’s Rea is generally motive- neutral It doesn’t require asking why the motive or
recklessness have occurred but instead strictly sees that as irrelevant.
Subjective V Objective
Subjective state of mind – typically looks at what was going through the defendant’s mind.
What were they thinking?
Objective – this is a contrast and deals with the concept of what ought to be going through
their mind. What should they have been thinking? Did they realise this consequence as a
result?
Intention: direct
Intention is the default approach and a word of ordinary usage which therefore you wouldn’t
think needs to be defined.
However, the courts have formed a definition from the case of Mohan 1976 QB1 that the
definition must perceive the’ aim and purpose of someone’s actions in order to find
intention from a defendant.
Intention is measured through the course of conduct. (Ultimately their actions prior to the
event).
Oblique Intention – defendant had an oblique intention if they had to do something else in
order to achieve their goal.
(James Bond – the window had to be shot at, before the target could be shot)
Intention: indirect
Adams 1957 Crim LR 365 – GP was put on trial after said to have murdered his patients.
Had administered higher doses of Morphine to individuals, killing them.
5th October 2022
Men’s rea – guilty mind. The other pillar of classic English criminal liability.
For an offence both actus reus and men’s rea must be satisfied.
Culpability and blameworthiness of actions are what distinguish this from actus reus.
There are different forms of Men’s Rea
No fault – usually with attract no criminal sanction. Generally, not blame worthy for the
consequences and couldn’t be found liable.
Negligence – where someone has formed below the standard that is expected of them.
Usually breaks areas of civil law. Not a criminal state of mind, generally but there can be
exceptions.
Recklessness – this is generally a criminal state of mind. Where a risk has been expected
but nothing been done regardless of this. Essentially foreseeability.
Intention – most blameworthy type of men’s rea. Intention has a motive, and this is criminal
intention. This could be direct or indirect intention.
Men’s Rea is generally motive- neutral It doesn’t require asking why the motive or
recklessness have occurred but instead strictly sees that as irrelevant.
Subjective V Objective
Subjective state of mind – typically looks at what was going through the defendant’s mind.
What were they thinking?
Objective – this is a contrast and deals with the concept of what ought to be going through
their mind. What should they have been thinking? Did they realise this consequence as a
result?
Intention: direct
Intention is the default approach and a word of ordinary usage which therefore you wouldn’t
think needs to be defined.
However, the courts have formed a definition from the case of Mohan 1976 QB1 that the
definition must perceive the’ aim and purpose of someone’s actions in order to find
intention from a defendant.
Intention is measured through the course of conduct. (Ultimately their actions prior to the
event).
Oblique Intention – defendant had an oblique intention if they had to do something else in
order to achieve their goal.
(James Bond – the window had to be shot at, before the target could be shot)
Intention: indirect
Adams 1957 Crim LR 365 – GP was put on trial after said to have murdered his patients.
Had administered higher doses of Morphine to individuals, killing them.
