Mens Rea

R v Mohan (1975) - the normal meaning of the word intention is generally taken to mean a result which the defendant wanted or aimed to produce. 

R v Moloney (1985) - intention is assessed subjectively. The House of Lords stated that in most cases the jury should simply be told that intention should be given its normal meaning and that the judge should not try and define the term. Intent could be inferred if the defendant foresaw the consequence as a natural consequence of his act. 

R v Cunningham (1957) - recklessness is assessed subjectively. This is the leading case for recklessness. The defendant stole a gas meter and its contents out of the cellar of a house, and while doing so he caused a fracture in a gas pipe. Gas was released, and the victim breathed in a considerable quantity of it. The defendant was charged with maliciously causing another to take a noxious thing, from s23 of the OAPA 1861. The judge directed the jury that 'maliciously' meant 'wickedly', and that the defendant had been doing 'something which he had no business to do and perfectly well knows it'. The defendant's appeal was allowed. Wherever the word 'maliciously' appears in a statutory crime, the prosecution must prove that either the defendant had intended to do the particular harm in fact done, or that the defendant foresaw that such harm might be done. 

R v G (2004) - recklessness is assessed subjectively. Lord Bingham opined that 'It is clearly blameworthy to take an obvious and significant risk of causing injury to another. But it is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if .. one genuinely does not perceive the risk. Such a person may fairly be accused of stupidity or lack of imagination, but neither of those failings should expose him to conviction of serious crime of the risk of punishment ... It is neither moral nor just to convict a defendant (least of all a child) on the strength of what someone else would have apprehended if the defendant himself had no such apprehension'. 

R v Sheppard (1980) - wilfulness is assessed subjectively. 

Note: For awareness, see the Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Law Com 304, 2006)

R v Adomako (1994) - an objective test for negligence (including gross negligence).

Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) - an objective test for dishonesty. There is still an appreciation of the defendant's subjective mind, but it is mainly an objective test. As a result, R v Ghosh (1982) is now considered bad law. 

R v Royle (2013) - example of oblique intent. The defendant attacked the victim in order to get a hold of her property. Even though the defendant had the intention of getting the property, he knew he would cause GBH by attacking the victim, and could have even intended it. 

DPP v Smith (1961) - the defendant is presumed to intend or foresee the natural consequences of his actions.

…