Actus Reus and Mens Rea Flashcards
Mens Rea
Mens Rea is the state of mind the Defendant had at the time of committing the Actus Reus. It is not the same as motive.
There are 4 types of Mens Rea varying in seriousness. The types are: Strict Liability, Negligence, Recklessness and Intention.
Intention is the most serious type and has 2 categories: Direct Intention and Oblique Intention.
Direct Intention: This is when the accused actually wants the result to occur.
Oblique Intention: The accused intends one thing, but the actual consequence which occus is another thing.
In R v Mohan 1975, the court defined intention as:
‘A decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused power,[the prohibited consequence], no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not’. This shows Mens Rea is not the smae as Motive.
Foresight of Consequences
Foresight of Consequences can be seen if ‘in achieving the other result, the D foresaw that he would also cause those consequences with virtual certainty, then he may be found guilty.’
Foresight of Consequences:
Timeline
- S8 Criminal Jusice Act 1967:
“A Court or Jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence-
A) Shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a Natural and Probable Consequence but
B) Shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.”
The D must Intend or Foresee a result. - R v Moloney 1985- Foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention:
Lord Bridge told the Jury to consider 2 questions:
- Was the death or really serious injury a Natural Consequence of the D’s act?
- Did the D foresee that consequence as being a Natural result of his act? (Moloney Guidelines). - R v Hancock and Shankland 1986:
Lord Scarman- said the Moloney Guidelines were “Unsafe and Misleading. They require a reference to Probability.” - R v Nedrick 1998:
Development of a test for which Intention can be found. This is a Foresight of Consequences test, 2 questions:
- How Probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s voluntary act?
-Did D foresee it?
Lord Jance CJ wrote “ The Jury should be directed that they are NOT entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that the death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the D’s actions and that the D appreciated that such was the case.” - R v Woollin 1998:
Upheld the judgement in Nedrick, but changed the word ‘Infer’ to ‘Find’ and said the D must have foreseen the consequence as a Virtual Certainty. - R v Matthews and Alleyne 2003:
- Upholds the judgement in Woollin.
- Foresight of Consequences is not intention, but is a Rule of Evidence.
- If a Jury decides that the D foreseaw the virtual certainty of death or serious injury, they are entitled to find intention, but do not have to do so.
Commenting on the Law
- Natural and Probable Consequence:
It is necessary to include both words in the test for intention because something can be a natural cause without being a probable one e.g. pregnancy. - Difficulty for Jurors applying the Law:
Moloney, Hancock and Shankland Jurors had to be directed on the level of probability. Nedrick CA thought it necessary to simplify law for Jurors. - Infer or Find:
The 2 question test from Nedrick operated for 12 years before Woollin. - 2 Interpretations of Woollin:
CoA in 2 different cases, intepreted Woollin in 2 different ways.
Re A 2000: CoA thought Woollin meant Foresight of Consequences was Intention.
Matthews and Alleyne 2003: Stated Foresight of Consequence is only evidence of Intention.
Reform
Intention is not defined in any Statute.
Law Commission: Proposed definitions for Intention e.g. Draft Criminal Code 1989:
“A person acts intentionally with repsect to:
A) A circumstance when he hopes or knows that it exists or will exist.
B) A result when he acts either in order to bring it about or being aware that it will occur im the ordinary course of events.”
Criticisms of this Definition:
- It blurs Intention with Recklessness.
- Doesn’t cater for situations where D is not sure that his main purpose will be achieved or can be sure that the secondary result will in the ordinary course follow.
- A person could be held to have intended a result that it was his purpose to avoid.
IN RESPONSE TO THIS CRITICISM-
Law Commission- Offences Against the Person and General Principles Act 1993:
“A person acts Intentionally with respect to a result when:
It is his purpose to cause it; or althought it is not his purpose to cause it, he knows it could occur in the ordinary course of events if he were to succeed in his purpose of causing some other result.”
Thoughts on the Definition:
- Appears more broad than the Vertual Certainty Test.
- Could lead to more convictions.
2003 Consultation Paper 177- A New Homicide Act for England and Wales:
- Decided the present laws had necessary flexibility
Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, 304 2004 LC Report:
Gave new Definition- “An intention to bring about a result may be found if it is shown that the D thought the result was a Virtually Certain Consequence of their action.”
- It was never implemented.
- Woollin remains the leading case authority.
Coincidence of AR & MR
The Actus Reus and Mens Rea of ANY offence must be Contemporaneously occuring for there to be Liability. This means they must happen at the same time.
Case Examples:
Thabo Meli v R 1954-
In pre-arranged plans, D’s took V to a hut, got him drunk and struck him over the head. Believing he was dead, they rolled his body over a cliff to make it look like an accident. V was still alive and died from exposure. D’s convicted of Murder.
R v Church 1965-
D punched V after violent arguement and knocked her out. Believing she was dead, D dumped her in a river, where she drowned. D convicted of Manslaughter. Followed decision of Thabo Meli.
Continuing Act Rule
Seen in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969:
The Continuing Act Rule was used in this case to make what seemed like an Omission, a Positive Act.
D told by Police to bring car closer to curb. D accidentally ran over P foot. P told D to get off his foot, D replied ‘Fuck you, you can wait’ and turned ignition off. D argued the refusal to move the car was an Omission and the Actus Rues required was a positive act. CA Rule said it was a Continuing Act, so as long as D had Mens Rea at some point during the Act, he was liable.
Transferred Malice
If D intends to kill someone and accidentally kills the wrong person, he will still be guilty of murder.
Attorney General’s Reference 1997- Cannot transfer harm of unborn child to born child.
Case Examples:
R v Latimer 1886-
D argued in pub with P, D took off belt and swung it at P, belt hit Q with full force, severely wounding her. D was convicted of wounding.
R v Mitchell 1983-
D waiting in busy post office, tried to focre himself to front of queue. D stopped by 72 yr old man, D punches man, who falls into 89 yr old woman. Woman falls and dies later from injuries. D convicted of Mansalughter.
