Mens rea

Question 1

What does mens rea refer to?

Answer 1

The mental element of a crime

Mens rea is Latin for ‘guilty mind’ and is required alongside actus reus to establish criminal liability.

Question 2

What are the different types of mens rea?

Answer 2

1. Direct Intention
2. Indirect (Oblique) Intention
3. Recklessness
4. Negligence
5. Strict Liability

Each type has distinct characteristics and legal implications.

Question 3

Define Direct Intention.

Answer 3

Defendant’s aim or purpose is to bring about the prohibited consequence

Case: R v Mohan (1975) defined direct intent as the decision to bring about a consequence.

Question 4

What is Indirect (Oblique) Intention?

Answer 4

Defendant foresaw the outcome as a virtual certainty

Key cases: R v Woollin (1998) and R v Matthews & Alleyne (2003) confirm this.

Question 5

What is Recklessness?

Answer 5

Defendant foresees a risk but proceeds with the act anyway

Subjective recklessness focuses on the defendant’s perspective (R v Cunningham, 1957), while objective recklessness considers a reasonable person’s view.

Question 6

What is the difference between subjective and objective recklessness?

Answer 6

Subjective recklessness: Did the defendant foresee the risk?
Objective recklessness: Would a reasonable person see the risk?

R v Caldwell (1982) introduced objective recklessness but was later overruled by the Cunningham approach.

Question 7

What is Negligence in the context of mens rea?

Answer 7

Defendant fails to meet the standard of a reasonable person

Mostly applies in gross negligence manslaughter; case example: R v Adomako (1994).

Question 8

What is Strict Liability?

Answer 8

No mens rea required; just actus reus is enough for liability

Often applies in regulatory offences, as seen in Sweet v Parsley (1970).

Question 9

What is Transferred Malice?

Answer 9

Intent to harm one person is transferred to another

Case: R v Latimer (1886) illustrates this concept, while R v Pembliton (1874) shows intent cannot transfer between different offences.

Question 10

What happens when mens rea and actus reus do not coincide?

Answer 10

Liability may not be established

The continuing act theory (Fagan v MPC, 1969) and transaction theory (Thabo Meli, 1954) illustrate when they may coincide.

Question 11

What is the continuing act theory?

Answer 11

Mens rea developed during the act

Case: Fagan v MPC (1969) demonstrates this theory.

Question 12

What is the transaction theory?

Answer 12

Mens rea continues throughout the transaction

Case: Thabo Meli (1954) is an example where this theory applies.