Mens Rea

Question 1

What is men’s Rea?

Answer 1

• there is a general presumption that criminal liability id based on fault
• mens Rea concerns the defendants state of mind when an incident occurs. Did he intend to do it, was it an accident and so on
• r v Clarke - after the defendant proved she suffered from absent mindedness due to depression, she was acquitted of theft putting items in her own bag without paying for them
• mens Rea is the mental element of the offence
• apart from strict liability, mens Rea must be present at some level in most offences
• to is up to the prosecution to prove mens Rea

Question 2

Intention (specific intent) and motive

Answer 2

• the highest level of men’s Rea is intention. In other words, the defendant must have had it in his mind to bring about the consequence
• in mohan, the judge made very clear that the reason for carrying out the action was not relevant to the point
• in other words, where men’s Rea is concerned, the motive is not the issue, it is the intention to carry out the prohibited activity that is

Question 3

What is direct intent

Answer 3

• e.g, defendant puts to Vs head, pulls the trigger and kills him. Here, the direct intent was for d to kill v

Question 4

What is oblique intent

Answer 4

• e.g, defendant pushes a concrete block from a bridge onto the roadway with the intention of frightening someone so as the stop him going to work. Concrete block kills driver of the car - not the intended result

Question 5

Foresight of consequences

Answer 5

• if the prosecution can prove that the defendant in doing one action with an intended consequence could actually foresee other negative consequences as a result, then he may be proved guilty
• in other words, if i burn down a shop in order to get an insurance claim, but there are people in the shop that get injured, it is reasonable to presume that i knew beforehand that my actions might endanger the people inside
• natural consequences = a consequence that might occur
• probable consequence = a consequence that most likely will occur

Question 6

Evaluation foresight of consequences as intention

Answer 6

Problems:
- there is a difficult in defining the concept of intention where foresight of consequence is concerned for example where -
A) natural and probable consequence
B) difficulty for jurors in applying the test after moloney and Hancock
C) the change in woollin from inferring intention to finding intentions
D) the fact that there are still two interpretations of woollin

Question 7

Other issues

Answer 7

• natural and probable consequences. Both of these words need to be included in the test for intention
• difficulty for jurors. Moloney and Hancock made it difficult for judges to explain the law of jurors. This was emphasised in nedrick when the court of appeal thought it necessary to make the law easier to understand for jurors

Question 8

What is subjective recklessness

Answer 8

• lower level of men’s Rea than intention
• the defendant knows there is a risk of a consequence, but takes the risk anyway
• the case of Cunningham

Question 9

What is negligence

Answer 9

• what the defendant thought or intended is not relevant
• negligence is defined as failing to meet the standards of a reasonable person
• lower level of fault that intention and reckless
• e.g, driving without due care or attention

Question 10

Strict liability

Answer 10

• mens Rea not required to respect to at leat one aspect of the actus reus
• for all offences, there is a starting point that mens Rea us required, however, if the offence is decided to not need mens Rea in any part, then its a case of strict liability

Question 11

No fault

Answer 11

• a defendant can also be convicted however if his voluntary act resulted in an unforeseen prohibited circumstance
• it doesn’t even matter if he was totally blameless - callow v tillstone
• ‘due diligence’ where the defendant has done all in his power to prevent the committing of an offence. It doesn’t matter though. Harrow LBC v shah and shah
• even if the defendant has made an honest mistake, this still doesn’t matter. Cundy v Le cocq

Question 12

Summary of strict liability

Answer 12

• the actus reus must be proven
• voluntary act
• no need to prove mens Rea for at least part of the actus reus
• no due diligence available
• no defence of mistake

Question 13

Problems with statutory interpretation

Answer 13

• it is usually clear whatever Parliament has expressed that mens Rea is required or not from the language used in the statute
• this becomes a problem for the courts, when this is not clear
• sweet v parsley
• the wording of an act of Parliament may also need to be examined closely to see if there are any sections that either imply strict liability or the defence of due negligence
• if there are express provisions for mens Rea in other sections of the act, then the courts have to think about what parliaments original intent might have been

Question 14

Quasi criminal offences

Answer 14

• some offences are not defined as ‘truly criminal’, but they are still strict liability. These are known as regulatory offences
• e.g, selling food out of date or unfit for consumption as in callow v tillstone
• selling of alcohol
  Etc

Question 15

Penalty of imprisonment

Answer 15

• when an offence carried a penalty of imprisonment, it is much more likely to be treated as an offence that is ‘truly criminal’ rather than one of strict liability
• the case of B v DPP - in this case, the House of Lords quashed the boys conviction because it carried a penalty of 2 years in prions and it was decided that mens Rea would have been needed beforehand
• however in some cases, like storkwian, despite the offence carrying a prison sentence, it was still judged to be a case of strict liability

Question 16

Issues of social concern

Answer 16

• strict liability can also be justified if the statute is deemed to cover matter of public concern
• this can include health and safety regulations, food, drink, pollution, possession of guns etc
• r v Blake

Question 17

Transferred malice and general malice

Answer 17

• the defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a crime against one person, but a similar outcome affects another
• however if the defendants mens Rea is for a completely different offence to the actual outcome, there he may not be guilty e.g, pembliton
• this can get tricky when more than one party is involved
• general malice is where the defendant may not have a specific victim in mind

Question 18

Coincidence of actus reus and mens Rea

Answer 18

• remember, actus reus and mens Rea must be proven together in order for an offence to take place
• in some cases, actus reus and mens Rea are deemed to be present in the same acts, but for different reasons. Thabo v meli v r and church

Question 19

Continuing act

Answer 19

• refers to the actus reus coming first but then the mens Rea appearing at some stage in the act itself
• best case to illustrate this fagan v metropolitan police commissioner
• in r v le burn - the judge explained that although defedant had punched his wife, rendering her unconscious; the fact that it was a blow to her head that actually killed whilst dragging her, unconscious, along the street back to their house was not relevant - it was part of the same chain of events and that’s what mattered