Mens Rea (+ Cases)

Question 1

What is Mens Rea?

Answer 1

• MR is NOT about knowing you are committing a crime, and it is not about motive
• MR requires proof of a specific state of mind to establish guilt
• For each offence, the MR - the state of mind - will be specified, this is
what the prosecution must prove BRD

Question 2

Mens Rea def (deeper)

Answer 2

• MR is the mental element of the criminal offence , as specified within the definition of the offence, which must be proved alongside the AR
• For most offences the mental element has to be present at the time the D committed the AR

Question 3

Mr and Motive: R v Inglis

Answer 3

Point of law: where all the elements of the offence are proved (AR and MR) motive of D can not remove liability

Question 4

MR: direct intention

Answer 4

D carries out the AR and the result is what they intended to achieve – it was their aim, their purpose

R v Mohan (1976):
Point of law – direct intention is ‘a decision to bring about a criminal consequence’

Question 5

Indirect (oblique) intention

Answer 5

D cid not necessarily want the outcome that occurred to come about, but their conduct (the AR) made it highly likely that it would happen, and they realised this, but carried on anyway

R v Woolin (1998):
Point of law – established a 2-part test: the result must have been virtually certain to occur; AND D must have realised this

Question 6

Subjective test

Answer 6

‘Objectively, the Mona Lisa is considered a masterpiece work of art, subjectively I don’t think it is that good’

Question 7

Recklessness (indirect)

Answer 7

Use the subjective test

Question 8

Recklessness?

Answer 8

Related to taking unjustifiable risks - the D is ‘reckless’ does not care about the risk they are taking
• Their ‘recklessness’ means they should be held liable for any damage/injury/death that then occurs because they chose to carry on regardless, they could have stopped
• But only if they KNEW about the risk, and foresaw (had an idea) that it was at least possible the result would occur, and carried on anyway

Question 9

R v Cunningham

Answer 9

reckless means that the D has foreseen the risk of the outcome occurring but nevertheless continued with their actions. The test is a subjective one.

Question 10

R v G & R

Answer 10

the Cunningham test of subjective recklessness applied. On the facts, the D’s (who were children) had not appreciated (foreseen) the risk of the fire spreading, they were not guilty of arson.

Question 11

Transferred malice: R v Gnango?

Answer 11

under the operation of the principle known as transferred malice, his malice (intent to kill) had moved from his intended V (the second man) to the actual unintended V (the woman) whose death he actually caused

Question 12

Transferred malice (depth)

Answer 12

• It is NOT a type of MR
• It is a principle of law (a rule) about how MR operates
• It was developed by the common law to prevent unjust decisions in
cases like R v Gnango if a D were able to successfully argue he had
no MR for the offence

Question 13

Transferred malice: MR and AR for different offences

Answer 13

R v Pembliton: The MR of one crime could NOT be transferred to the AR of a different crime. For the rule to apply, they must be similar offences

Question 14

Strict liability offences

Answer 14

• General rule for ALL offences = AR and MR must be proved BRD
• A SLO is a rare crime that does NOT require a MR (certain state of mind). It is sufficient to prove just the AR of the offence to find D liable

Question 15

Callow v Tillstone

Answer 15

AR - yes, he had sold unsound meat
MR - no, he had no intention of selling unsound meat, and had in fact
taken all the steps he could to ensure he DID NOT sell unsound meat

Question 16

Continuing act principle?

Answer 16

Where the AR of the offence comes first, the court will find the AR is a continuing act and it is enough that it continues over time to eventually meet the MR of the offence

Question 17

Transaction principle

Answer 17

Where D has committed a series of connected acts that form part of the same event - a single transaction - they will be guilty if both the AR and MR were present at some point.