Embedded Files
The mens rea is the mental element of a crime, what the defendant intended, knew, or foresaw when committing the act. It shows the level of blame or fault required for criminal liability. While the actus reus deals with what happened externally, the mens rea focuses on the defendant’s internal state of mind.
Different offences require different mental states. The main types are intention, recklessness, and negligence, with some offences also involving knowledge or belief.
Intention
Intention is the highest level of mens rea. It means the defendant aimed to bring about a particular result. There are two kinds:
Direct intention – where the result is the defendant’s purpose or goal.
R v Mohan [1976] – Intention means a decision to bring about a result, no matter whether the defendant desired it or not.
Oblique (indirect) intention – where the result was not the defendant’s aim but was a virtually certain consequence of their actions, and they realised this.
R v Woollin [1999] – A jury may find intention if death or serious injury was a virtual certainty from the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciated that fact.
Recklessness
Recklessness means consciously taking an unjustified risk. The defendant foresees the risk of a consequence but goes ahead anyway.
R v Cunningham [1957] – Defined recklessness as when the defendant foresees the risk and still takes it.
R v G and Another [2003] – Confirmed the subjective test: the defendant must personally have foreseen the risk, not merely that a reasonable person would have.
Negligence
Negligence is a lower standard of fault. It applies where the defendant fails to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, leading to a criminal result. It is mainly used in offences like gross negligence manslaughter.
R v Adomako [1994] – A doctor was guilty of manslaughter after failing to notice a disconnected oxygen tube. His conduct was “so bad” it amounted to a criminal act.
Knowledge and Belief
Some offences require proof that the defendant knew certain facts or believed something to be true.
Example: Handling stolen goods requires that the defendant knew or believed the goods were stolen.
Transferred Malice
If the defendant intends to harm one person but accidentally harms another, their mens rea can transfer to the actual victim.
R v Latimer [1886] – The defendant aimed to hit one person but injured another; his intention transferred.
R v Pembliton [1874] – Transferred malice does not apply if the result is of a different type (e.g. intending to harm a person but damaging property).
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
The actus reus and mens rea must generally occur at the same time. Courts interpret this flexibly to avoid unfair acquittals.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] – The defendant accidentally drove onto an officer’s foot, then refused to move. The act became a continuing act, allowing coincidence with mens rea.
Google Sites
Report abuse