Mens Rea Flashcards
What is the definition of Criminal Damage Act 1971 as stated in s1(1)?
What are the Mens Rea requirements?
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
You are guilty if you are a) reckless b) intend to do damage.
What is Mens Rea?
What is the Mens Rea for murder?
Some crimes do not require proof of any mental state of the defendant, what are these called?
Mens Rea is concerned with the mental element of an offence. It is the state of mind that the defendant must have had when committing the Actus reus if he or she is to be found guilty. Every offence has a different Actus Reus/Mens Rea. Mens Rea for murder: An intention to Kill or Cause GBH.
Strict liability cases: Requires proof that D acted in a certain way and did a prohibited result.
Negligence: requires someone to not meet a certain standard.
Note that these are elements of crimes if you have the Mens Rea of recklessness you arnt guilty of recklessness, it just leaves you open to an offence of recklessness.
Some offences will have different Mens Rea requirements in respect to different aspects of the Actus Reus. For instance Rape. What is the definition of rape as stated in s1(1) Sexual offences act of 2003? And what is the Mens Rea?
A intentionally penetrates the vagina anus or mouth with his penis. A does not reasonable believe that B consents. Mens Rea: A must intend to have sex with B but only needs to lack a reasonable belief in relation to consent.
The Mens Rea is not concerned with moral blame worthiness, but rather in the legal sense. In certain circumstances a person may have the Mens Rea for a crime, even when we don’t view him as blameworthy. Provide an example.
Case of Yip Chiu-Cheung: D was charged with conspiring with E who was a undercover police officer to export drugs from Hong Kong to Australia and with the agreement of E’s superiors E carried this out. The offence of conspiracy requires two people to have the Mens Rea, D said because E was a undercover police officer he couldn’t have the Mens Rea.
held: E did have the guilty mind required as he had an intention to comit the crime, the fact E had a good motive was irrelevant. .
Case of Cox-A doctor gave a patient a lethal injection. The patient died, Dr charged with murder. Although we might see this as a good motive, it is not the same as intention. He intended to kill v therefore he had the Mens Rea for murder. An intention to kill or cause GBH.
Does it matter in terms of Mens Rea if D didn’t know it was illegal?
Generally, if D intended to cause or was reckless in causing the state of affairs forbidden by law then it is immaterial for his conviction that he didn’t know what he was doing was forbidden.
Case of Esop: D who was from Bagdad was charged for a sexual offence, which took place on a ship in an English port. The fact that the act was committed was lawful in his own country, and hat he did not know English law was irrelevant. He intended to comit the act and therefore he had the Mens Rea.
What is the definition of intention?
And what is the golden rule?
Intention is to be given it’s normal meaning: purpose or aim. In most cases the judge should just ask the jury to give intention it’s everyday meaning. In exceptional borderline cases the jury can be directed that they are entitled to find intention if the result is virtually certain to occur and D realised that it was virtually certain to occur.
Basic intent essentially means someone is reckless
Specific intent: generally synonymous in intention
Ulterior intent: there is an addition Mens Rea other than the Mens Rea that caused the Actus Reus. E.g. S18 OAP 1861 concerns the offence of unlawfully and maliciously wounding with an intent to do GBH. While maliciously is a Mens Rea requirement, s18 has the ulterior added on the end of with intent to cause GBH.
The golden rule was made clear in the HoL in Moloney. It was said that when directing the jury on the mental element necessary in a crime of specific intent, the judge should leave any elaboration or paraphrasing out of it. They should leave it to the juries good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent.
The case of Esop is concerned with a mistake of law. Provide an example concerned with a mistake in fact e.g. No Mens Rea
Smith 1974- under the Mens Rea for criminal damage d must intend or be reckless as to damage or destroying a property belonging to another person. D admitted that he intended to destroy the property belonging to another however he honestly believed that the property was his. Therefore, he couldn’t be guilty because the Mens Rea requirement specifically includes damaging the property of another, he thought he was damaging his own.
The courts have sometimes interpreted intention narrowly in some cases to get the defendant off the hook. Provide an example.
Case of Steane- D was in Germany when war broke out he was told to broadcast properganda or he and his family would be placed in a concentration camp. He was charged when he returned to the Uk for assisting the enemy.
Court held that steane had intended to assist his family but had not intended to assist the enemy.
Almerod has argued that this case has wrongly confused intention and motive, and confuses the law. He said it would be better if he were to be found guilty, and then be open to he defence of duress.
