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
- Person should be taken to intend a resultif they act to bring it about
- 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