Mens Rea

Motive

Introduction

Prosecution has to prove the defendant had the mens rea at the time he commited the offense

There can be more than one mens rea

Theft has dishonesty and permanently deprive

GBH; Grievous Bodily Harm

Most Common categories of Mens Rea

Other Mens Rea

Intention and Recklessness

Intentionally, Recklessly, maliciously, knowingly, believing, dishonesty

Subjective vs. Objective

Subjective: What defendant saw from his actions

Objective: Compare defendant actions with the perspective of a reasonable person

In case of murder we ask whether the defendant had malice forethought, to cause GBH

Examples: Intent, Recklessness

Motive is DIFFERENT from intention

Example; people pull down famous statues from the slave trade, motive was to support the black lives matter campaign, but the intent to commit an offense by tearing down public property

Sometimes motive becomes irrelevant after conviction

Might be used in mitigation to reduce sentence

Example; Steane (1947) During WW2, A Stene(British) broadcasted for the Germans because he received threats to him and his family. Court said he acted to save his family from the camps and did not intent to assist the family. The court mixed up motive and intent in this case.

Intention

Direct Intent

Oblique Intent (indirect)

In context of Criminal law, the intent often becomes confusing

One's aim or purpose

Direct intent is the norm applied in court, just need to use common sense

Does not involve a persons aim or purpose

Requires the consequences of the defendant to be Certain to occur

Has been an issue for decades

What degree of foresight is required for oblique intent

Does foresight equate to intention or evidence of intention

Examples

DPP V Smith (1961), defendant was driving a car containing stolen property, police hanged onto defendant car and was crashed by another car, and died. defendant said it was an accident and didn't have the intent. But was found guilty of murder

2006, Law commission published a report to get reforms to the oblique intent. It was called Murder, Manslaughter infantized. They think it should be upheld by a statute, with 2 key points

  1. Person should be taken to intend a resultif they act to bring it about
  1. In cases where judges may not be possible, An intent to bring a result may be found if defendant thought it would be a certain result of their actions

Moloney (1985), Son shot father, defendant argues he didn't aim, he just shot and didn't have the intent to kill the dad.

Recklessness

Defined as the taking of an unjustified or unreasonable risk

Cunningham(1957), defendant broke a gas meter and pipe, women inhaled the gas and defendant convicted of maliciously administrating a noxious thing and endangering life.

RvG (2003), defendant age 11 and 12, set fire to newspaper, fire spread and caused 1 million in damages. defendants said they had not considered the fire to spread. Said they would be reckless if there was an obvious risk of danger and the boys did not think of such a risk

Knowledge and Belief

Theft act (1968), requires the defendant to know the goods are stolen

Knowledge is necessary in offenses of possession, this is supported by the misuse of Drugs Act 1971

These are subjective conepts

Knowledge; being certain a circumstance exists or willful blindness, a gut feeling of an omen

Belief is less certain

Negligence

Definitions

The more obvious the event should have been to a person, the higher the degree of negligence

knows of something but doesn't act upon it which results in grievous harm

A person is negligent if they miss something that a normal person would notice

Relationship between Actus Reus & Mens Rea

Principle of Coincidence

Actus Reus and Mens Rea must coincide in time to be guilty. Bascially must have the intent during the act

Single Transaction Principle

Brings a number of events together

Example

Thabo Meli v R (1954) Defendant struck a blow and rolled him off a cliff, but the victim died of exposure

Le Brun (1991), Struck his wife knocking her unconscious, dropped her thereby killing her. As long as the defendant had the mens rea during these series of acts, it would be counter as him acting.

Defendant augured that the Actus Rea wasn't him so he can't be found of murder

The court responded saying it was one series of events, with pushing the victim of the cliff being the operating factor and as long as he had the Mens rea he would be found guilty

Intent is Subjective

Woodlin (1990), man throws baby, while he did not aim to kill the baby, he knew that throwing it would lead to serious injuries and as a result he was convicted of manslaughter