Mens Rea

Mens rea is the mental element of an offence/the guilty mind.

Each offence has its own mens rea or mental element. The only exceptions are strict liability offences.

There are different levels of mens rea to be guilty and the accused must atleast have the minimum level of mens rea required for that offence.

Different levels of mens rea are:

• Direct intention
• Oblique intention
• Recklessness

(In exam it's usually a four part answer)

This is the highest level of mens rea.

• D intended to do it. Use words like aimed, purpose or desire
• D's motive/reason for committing act is not relevant
• Important thing is that they meant to do it/bring about prohibited consequences
• This can be direct/indirect

E.g. Mohan (1975)

• Defines direct intention as:

'A decision to bring about criminal consequences.'

This can also be known as the foresight of consequences.

• This is not the same as intention.
• It is only evidence from which intention can be found
• D intended act but not consequences
• D can be found to have intention where harm caused as result was VIRTUAL CERTAINTY - D must have realised this

E.g. Woolin (1998)

• D feeding 3 month old son
• Baby choked - D got angry and threw at pram
• Hit wall instead - brain injuries - died
• D did not have direct intention to kill son

(Woolin)

The court used a test to decide whether the defendant had indirect/oblique intention.

Can infer intention of consequence as a virtually certain result of the act and the defendant knows that is is a virtually certain consequence.

E.g. Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

• D threw victim in to a river 
• D expected V to swim but he drowned
• D found guilty of murder
• Woolin set out a rule of evidence

This case confirms that  the virtual certainty test in Woolin does allow jury to infer intention.

This is a lower level of mens rea.

• Defendant knows there is a risk of criminal consequence
• Is willing to take risk deliberately
• Knows there is a risk but goes ahead anyway
• Difficult to establish

Cunningham (1857)

• D broke in to pre-pay gas meter ato steal money
• Gas escaped in to a neighbours house making them ill
• Charged with maliciously administrating a noxious substance to victim
• NOT GUILTY because he did not realise risk of gas
• Didn't intend to cause harm

Savage (1991)

• Confirms that maliciously, in terms of mens rea, means D didn't realise consequence or realise that there is a risk of that consequence happening and thus decide to take that risk.

This is the principle in which the defendant can be guilty if they intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim.

E.g. Latimer (1886)

• D aimed blow with belt at a man who attacked him
• Belt bounced off man and struck a woman in face
• Latimer found guilty of assault against her - despite him not meaning to do it

HOWEVER - Mens rea may be for a completely different offence making D NOT GUILTY

Pembliton (1874)

• D threw stone intending to hurt person
• Stone hit/broke window
• Intention to hit people can't be transferred to window