UNIVERSITY OF GUYANA CRIMINAL LAW I – LA11A

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

Lecturers: Justice Kenneth Benjamin

Ms. Alexis Downes-Amsterdam
Magistrate Alisha George

STUDYGUIDE 2 CONT’D - ELEMENTS OF A CRIME - MENS REA

Mens rea is concerned with the state of mind of the defendant. Mens rea means a guilty state of
mind. It refers to the mental element required by the definition of the particular crime and
typically, intention and recklessness are the forms considered. Mens rea concerns legal and not
moral guilt. See R v Yip - Chiu - Cheung [1995] 1 AC 111 and R v Kingston [1994] 3 WLR 519.

1. Intention
Numerous offences require ‘intention’ to cause a specified result. Intention requires the highest
degree of fault and can be divided into direct intent and oblique intent.
R v Warner (1970) 55 Cr App R 93
R v Savage [1991] 4 All ER 698
Re A (Children) [2000] 4 All ER 961
R v Lipman [1969] 3 All ER 410
R v Dudley & Stephens (1884) LR 14 QBD 273

(a) Direct intent: A result is intended when it is the actor’s purpose to cause it. Direct intent can
therefore be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a
result which in fact occurs, where the conduct achieves the desired result.

(b) Oblique intent:

Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring
about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another
result.

The jury is entitled to conclude that a result was intended if (i) the result is a virtually certain
consequence of the defendant’s act and (ii) the defendant knew that it was a virtually certain
consequence.
Moloney [1985] AC 905
Hancock & Shankland [1985] 3 WLR 1014
Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025
Woollin [1999] AC 82
Matthews and Alleyne [2003] Crim LR 553

It is not the same as motive. If the defendant causes an actus reus with the applicable mens rea,
he is guilty of the offence in question. Whether or not he had a good motive is irrelevant to the
issue of his guilt. Similarly, if either the mens rea or the actus reus is missing, no motive,
however evil, will result in the establishment of criminal guilt.
AG’s Reference (No. I of 2002) [2002] EWCA Crim 2392

2. Recklessness
This is the taking of an unjustified risk. A person who does not intend to cause a harmful result
may nonetheless take an unjustifiable risk of causing it. This is recklessness.

The test involves assessing two issues: (i) whether the defendant foresaw a risk of the proscribed
result or circumstance; and (ii) whether it was reasonable for the defendant to take the risk in the
circumstances known to him.
AG’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] 2 Cr App R 367
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
Parker (1976) 63 CAS 211
Stephenson [1979] QB 695
R v Venna [1975] 3 All ER 788
Flack v Hunt (1979) 70 Cr App R 51
R v Spratt [1991] 2 All ER 210
Chief Constable of Avon v Shimmen (1986) 84 Cr App R 7
MPC v Caldwell [1982] AC 341 overruled in R v Gemmell & Richards [2003] 3 WLR
DPP v K.
R v G & R [2003] 4 All ER 765
Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699

3. Negligence
Whereas recklessness id the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk, negligence is the
inadvertent taking of an unjustifiable risk. If the defendant is aware of the risk and decided to
take it, he is reckless. If the defendant is unaware of the risk, but ought to have been aware of it,
he is negligent. Negligence plays a minor role in criminal liability and adheres to an objective
standard.
McCrone v. Riding [1938] 1 All ER 137
R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
Adomako [1994] 3 WLR 288:
"whether the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to
amount in their judgment to a criminal act or omission."

4. Transferred Malice
The doctrine of transferred malice is where the mens rea of an offence can be transferred but it
does not apply where the crime which occurred was different from that intended.
R v Saunders (1573) 2 Plowd 473
R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359
R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2CCR 119
Agnes Gore's Case (1611) 77 ER 853
Attorney-General's Reference (Nos.1 & 2 of 1979) [1979] 3 All ER 143
Attorney-General's Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1996] Crim LR 268
R v Grant [2014] EWCA Crim 143
5. Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
The mens rea must coincide in point of time with the act which cause the actus reus. The
prosecution must prove that mens rea existed when the actus reus was committed. This is
known as the contemporaneity rule.
R v Jakeman (1982) 76 Cr App R 223
Fagan v MPC [1969] 1Q.B. 439
DPP v Ray [1974] AC 370
Thabo-Meli v R [1954] 1 WLR 228
Hale [1978] 68 Cr App R 415
R v Taafe [1984] 1 All ER 747
R v Le Brun [1991] 4 All ER 673

6. Other mens rea cases

Chandler v. D.P.P. [1964] A.C. 763
R. v. Steane [1947] K.B. 997
R v Worrell (1972) 19 W.I.R. 180
Ramroop v. R (1972) 20 WIR .532