Criminal: Mens Rea

Mens Rea

The prosecution must prove that the defendant committed the actus reus whilst within a certain state of mind, it must be proven that the defendant had a guilty state of mind. There are three main types of mens rea, intention, recklessness and negligence.

Direct Intention

The conscious, deliberate aim, irrespective of the accused’s motive. The prosecution must prove that the defendant directly intends the consequence of their actions.

Mohan: Held, the defendant directly intended to bring about the consequences of his actions.

R v Steane [1947]: The defendant was charged with doing acts likely to assist an enemy (treason). He broadcasted for the Nazis, but in order to save his family who were threatened with the Concentration Camp. His motive was relevant because he had a good motive as he didn’t want to commit treason.

Chandler v DPP [1964]: Charged under the Official Secrets Act, he had ‘entered a prohibited place’ for a purpose of prejudicial to the state. He broke into an American air base because he feared the Americans had nukes on their planes and would be landing on British bases. Contrary to British law. He was justified as he was ‘saving the state’. His motive was irrelevant.

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986]: Accused the doctors of aiding and abetting underage sex because they were supplying the pill to underage girls. Courts said that the doctors have a good motive and therefore there was no intention for aiding and abetting.

Re A [2000]: Conjoined twins. Doctors went to court to decide if they could separate them when it was inevitable that one would die. One of the twins was deemed parasitic to the other. The motive was to save one. Held, the motive was irrelevant.

Oblique Intention

A court of jury may also infer that a result is intended though it is not desired when the accused realises that it is a virtual certain consequence of this act.

Hyam v DPP [1975]: A man and his mistress’ relationship ceased due to her medical problems. The man took a new mistress. The old mistress drove to the new mistress’ house and put petrol through her letterbox. Her two daughters were killed. Held, if it was a moral certainty that the children would die and she knew it she would be convicted of murder.

Moloney [1985]: A stepfather and stepson had a game to see who could draw and load a gun the quickest. The stepfather said “you haven’t got the guts to pull the trigger”. He pulled the trigger, killing the stepfather. His excuse was that he didn’t believe that he was aiming the gun at his stepfather. The judges discussed whether the death was a natural consequence and did the defendant know that it was a natural consequence.

Hancock and Shankland [1986]: During the miners’ strike they dropped a concrete slab onto the motorway in order to stop working miners’ from arriving at the pit in a taxi. Unfortunately, it dropped onto the taxi and killed the occupant. They didn’t intend to do this, but rather block the carriageway. Judges asked if from their actions it was a high probability and if they knew it then they could be convicted.

Nedrick [1986]: Foresight of a ‘virtual certainty’ of death or serious bodily harm by the accused.

Walker v Hayles [1990]: Argued that the term ‘virtual certainty’ should have been used rather than the term ‘high probability’. Held, the two terms should be inferred to mean the same.

R v Woolin [1999]: The defendant threw his three month old son against the wall, killing him. Held, the virtual certainty test is the one to apply.

Matthews and Alleyne [2003]: Held, death or serious injury as a virtual certain result is not the direct intention for murder but the jury can infer direct intention from it.

Recklessness

This is where the defendant takes an unjustified risk, the test is based on the subjective view of the defendant.

Elliot v C [1983]: The defendant was not very bright, aged 14, she put paraffin on some hay in a shed and set it alight, burning down the shed. She was charged with criminal damage. The courts did not take into account her age and circumstances, it was an objective test.

R v Cunningham [1957]: The defendant tore a gas meter off the wall in an empty house in order to steal the money from it. He cause gas to escape into the next door property where the owner became affected. In court he claimed he never thought there would be any danger. He was found not to be subjectively reckless.

R v G and Another [2003]: Two children aged 11 and 12 set fire to the contents of a dustbin. Unfortunately, the blaze caused over £1m of damage to an adjacent shop. In the appeal, the judges decided that objective recklessness should not be applied, it should be a test of subjective recklessness only.