10- Mens Rea Flashcards
Mens Rea: Background information
Mental element of an offence.
Each offence has its own mens rea.
Exceptions: offences of strict liability.
In criminal cases it’s for the prosecution to prove the required mens rea.
To be guilty accused must have at least the minimum level of mens rea required for the offence.
What are the different levels of mens rea?
Highest level of mens rea is intention (aka ‘specific intention’).
Other main types of mens rea are knowledge and recklessness.
Sometimes negligence described as mens rea though tested objectively, as a failure to meet a required standard of conduct.
Intention>recklessness>negligence>{strict liability}
Who and what defines Intention?
In Mohan (1975) the court defined intention as:
“a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, [the prohibited consequence], no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not”.
This makes clear that D’s motive/reason for doing the act isn’t relevant.
EXAMPLE: For the offence set out in s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, D must wound/cause grievous bodily harm.
Mens rea is that D must intend to cause grievous bodily harm or intend to resist arrest.
If D didn’t intend either they cannot be guilty of this offence.
EXAMPLE: If someone opens the door and hits and injures someone on the other side whom they didn’t know was there, they don’t intend to ‘bring about’ the prohibited consequence.
What did the case that defines intention also make clear?
Mohan (1975) also makes clear that motive isn’t the = as intention and isn’t relevant in deciding whether D had intention.
EXAMPLE: A person who feels Western banks are causing poverty steals millions from a bank so that they can give to people in poorer nations.
Motive: to make sure poor receive money.
This is irrelevant in deciding whether D has the mens rea for theft.
What are the 2 types of intent?
Direct and oblique intent
Direct intent
Majority of cases D has direct intent.
They intend the specific consequence to occur.
EXAMPLE: D decides to kill victim. D aims gun directly at victim’s head and shoots. D has direct intent to kill.
Oblique intent
D, however, could not desire an outcome.
Their aim or purpose is something different. - Known as oblique intent/indirect intent.
EXAMPLE: Where D intended to frighten someone to stop them going to work, as in Hancock and Shankland (1986).
Actual consequence in that case was that the driver taking the person to work was killed through D’s actions.
Driver’s death was not the direct intent of D.
Background to foresight of consequences
Main problem with proving intentions when D’s main aim wasn’t a prohibited consequence.
If in achieving their aim D foresaw that they could also cause those consequences , they might be found guilty.
This idea known as ‘foresight of consequences’.
EXAMPLE: D sets fire to their shop in order to claim insurance. Main aim is damaging the shop and getting insurance. Unfortunately, a member of staff was in the shop when the fire started, and was seriously injured. Does D the intention for s 18 offence of causing grievous bodily harm?
What is the starting point for foresight of consequences?
Starting point for foresight of consequences is s 8 of Criminal Justice Act 1967 which states that the court or jury when deciding whether a person has committed an offence:
“Shall not be bound in law to infer that D intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions, but
shall decide whether D intended or foresee that result by reference to evidence”.
Important point: D must intend or foresee a result.
In a murder case this means D must foresee that death or really serious injury will be caused.
What is the leading case for foresight of consequences in murder?
Woollin (1998)
What is one of the cases before Woollin (1998) in relation to foresight of consequences?
Moloney (1985), where HoL ruled that foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention. It isn’t intention in itself. (This is still law.)
Other parts of judgement have been overruled by later cases.
Bc Lord Bridge stated that jurors should be told to consider 2 questions:
Was death/ really serious injury a natural consequence of D’s act?
Did D foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his act?
What is the problem with the Moloney guidelines?
Problem with these questions (Moloney guidelines) is that word ‘probable’ not mentioned.
s 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 uses the phrase ‘natural and probable’ consequence.
Lord Bridge only referred to a ‘natural’ result, and this omission of the word ‘probable’ was held in Hancock and Shankland (1986) to make the guidelines defective.
Guidelines are no longer law.
What is the case after Hancock and Shnakland (1986) in relation to foresight of consequence in murder?
Nedrick (1986) where CofA thought that judgements in 2 earlier cases needed to be made clear.
To make law decided in Moloney, Hancock and Nedrick easier for jurors to understand and apply in murder trials, CofA said jury should ask themselves 2 questions:
How probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s voluntary act?
Did D foresee that consequence?
Necessary for consequence to be a virtual certainty and for D to have realised that.
If so, there was evidence from which jury could infer that D had the necessary intention.
Lord Cane CJ:
“Jury should be directed that they’re not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s actions and that D appreciated that such was the case.”
This remained law until 1998 and case of Woollin (1998).
Went to HoL who felt that CofA’s views in Nedrick (1986) were not helpful.
What is the problem with the decision in Woollin (1998)?
- Whether the substitution of the word ‘infer’ for ‘find’ improves the clarity of the direction to the jury.
- Whether the use of the word ‘find’ means that foresight of consequence is intention and not just evidence of it. Lord Steyn’s judgement suggests that the House of Lords in Woollin regarded foresight of consequence as the same as intention, when Moloney had clearly stated that it was not.
Which cases evidence conflicting decisions derived from the decision in Woollin?
- Re A (2000), where doctors asked the court if they could operate to separate conjoined twins when they foresaw that this would kill the weaker twin. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) thought that Woollin laid down the rule that foresight of consequence is intention.
- Matthews and Alleyne (2003), where Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) held that the judgement in Woollin meant that foresight of consequence is not intention, it is a rule of evidence.
If jury decides that D foresaw the virtual certainty of death/serious bodily harm, they are entitled to find intention but do not have to do so.
