Mens rea Flashcards
What is men’s rea?
the mental element of an offence
R v Madely (1990)
TV presenter was charged with shoplifting. the shop had evidence that the guilty act took place but the court accepted that he was overworked and stressed which lead to him forgetting to pay. The actus reus was proved but not men’s rea.
Law: to prove men’s rea it must be shown that the defendant had a particular state of mind when the crime took place.
What are the two types of men’s rea?
intention and recklessness
What is direct intention?
When the defendant’ purpose is to bring about a particular result
What is indirect intention?
When the defendant doesn’t want to bring about a particular result but realised that this is virtually certain to occur.
Case to support direct intention
mohan:
the defendant was driving his car and responded to a police officer to slow down but he accelerated and he police officer had to jump out of the way. Law - it was defined that as the decision to bring about a consequence, in so far as it lied within the defendants powers.
inglis:
A mother murdered her son as a act of mercy. achieved her direct act of killing him. Her intention was to end his life.
Cases to support indirect intention
R v Nedrick (1986)
Defendant set fire to a woman’s house after threatening her and a boy died as a consequence. sentence was reduced from murder to manslaughter as they CoA couldn’t be sure that he knew that the death was a virtual certainty if his actions.
R v Woolin (1998) - the defendant threw his baby at his peak and missed resulting in it dying. The current test was confirmed in Woolin as the jury can find intention if they feel sure the harm was a virtual certainty of the defendants actions and that the defendant appreciated this.
What is recklessness?
Taking an unjustifiable risk which is a lower men’s rea than intention.
What is subjective recklessness?
The defendant realised there is a risk, but decides to take it anyway.
recklessness - Cunningham (1956)
the defendant wrenched a gas metre and the gas escaped to the next door injuring a woman. He was found not guilty as the court had failed to prove that he had recognised the risk of gas escaping.
In Cunnigham what were the principles they established that the defendant will be reckless if:
- They foresee a possibility of an unlawful consequence occurring
- The risk was unjustifiable or unreasonable
R v Stephenson (1979) - recklessness
Homeless man slept in a hay stack and lit a fire to keep warm but the hay stack set on fire. The defendant was found not liable as he did not foresee the risk of damage.
