Mens Rea Flashcards
What does ‘mens rea’ mean?
Guilty mind - relates to D’s state of mind at time of offence
Broadly, did D intend an offence or were they reckless as to causing it?
What are the two types of intention?
Direct and indirect/oblique intention
Explain direct intention
It was D’s aim or purpose to cause that conduct/that offence
Explain indirect/oblique intention
Considered if direct intention cannot be shown. Two elements:
1) Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from D’s act or omission? - objective assessment; if yes:
2) Did D appreciate the consequences were virtually certain to occur? - subjective assessment
If answer to both is yes, shows D did intend consequences of their actions
Explain recklessness
D is aware of the relevant risk and goes on, without justification, to take that risk
- The issue of justification is objective
i) What the risk was and the likely consequences + potential social utility of the action
- Whether D is aware of the risk is subjective
i) Doesn’t matter whether they should have foreseen it
The awareness of even a small risk of the offence is sufficient
How does negligence relate to MR?
Offences of negligence that have a criminal element are rare, but they have no MR requirements
Whether or not someone is guilty is decided by an assessment of whether D falls below the standards of the reasonable person - This is an objective test
Careless driving would be an example of a crime of negligence
What are strict liability offences?
There is no mens rea requirement for one or more AR elements of the offence
Most strict liability offences are statutory – food and road safety are examples
For example, even drivers who don’t know they are over legal drink limit (if spiked) are guilty under a SL offence
What is the principle of transferred malice?
The MR towards A can be transferred to the AR committed against B, provided the offence is the same - The principle does not extend to different types of offences
Where the offence may be committed recklessly, there is no need to consider transferred malice, as D needs only foresee risk of any harm to anyone
Example - If you intend to kill and shoot A, but you end up shooting and killing B – the mens rea can be transferred to killing of B
What does it mean to say there must be coincidence of AR + MR and what principles can be used to check this?
- Prosecution must prove that AR + MR happened together
- If proving MR was present at time D committed AR is an issue, consider:
i) Continuing act principle– if D had MR at some point in the continuing act, that would suffice
ii) Single transaction/series of events – if D is engaged in criminal activity throughout the series of events and provided, they had MR at some point in the series, the series is regarded as a single transaction and coincidence of AR + MR is found
How are offences classified in terms of MR?
1) Basic intent crimes – one which can be proven either through intention or recklessness (offence of assault occasioning ABH)
- D cannot rely on voluntary intoxication as a defence
2) Specific intent crimes – requires proof of intention and nothing less will do (offence of murder)
3) Ulterior intent crimes – the MR requirements go beyond the AR that the prosecution must prove
Give an example of an ulterior intent offence
Aggravated criminal damage
- AR is damage or destruction of property
- MR is intention or recklessness as to that damage or destruction of property and intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of the life of another person
