Mens rea part 1

What is he thinking……?
Learning outcomes

 By the end of the MR section you should have:

 Developeda good level of knowledge and understanding

of the “mens rea” element of a criminal offence.

 Developed a good level of knowledge and understanding

of the “intention” and “recklessness” forms of mens rea.
What are the
elements of a
crime?
The Mens Rea
i.e. at the
The Actus time the The
Reus i.e. the defendant did defendant had
defendant did the guilty act no defence in
a “guilty act” they d so with law
a “guilty
mind”
 Mens rea is the mental element required by
the crime – it is NOT the same as motive.
 The mens rea must occur at the same time as
the actus reus – this is the principle of
COINCIDENCE.
 Criminal mens rea can be described by such
words as Intention, recklessness, negligence,
knowledge or belief.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC
 The main mens rea that we will be discussing
here are intention and recklessness
Coincidence
 An important principle related to both the actus reus and mens rea of all
criminal offences.
 The idea is essentially that in order for a defendant to be convicted of a
criminal offence, the actus reus and mens rea of that offence must
coincide/overlap.
 If the actus reus is performed at a time when the mens rea is not present,
or the defendant has the necessary mens rea for an offence but does not
perform the actus reus at the same time, no criminal offence will have
been committed.
 To get around difficulties associated with the principle the courts have
developed the “continuing act” theory (see: Fagan v MPC [1969]) and the
“single transaction” theory (see: Thabo Meli v R [1954])
INTENTION – I did it on purpose!

 Many criminally offences (e.g. murder, theft, rape) can only be

committed if the defendant performs the actus reus of the offence
“intentionally”.
 For instance, the mens rea for the offence of murder is an intention
to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. See: Vickers [1957]
 However, “intention” is a word not defined anywhere in legislation,
and has caused some confusion for the law. Two main types of
intention are now recognised:
 Direct Intention; and
 Oblique Intention
Direct intention

A person intends to cause a result when it is his ‘aim, purpose

or desire’ to cause that result.
 For instance, a person who acts with the purpose of causing a
specific result will be taken to have intended to cause that
result. See: Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17.
 If,for example, Person A deliberately gives a lethal injection
to Person B in order to kill Person B and end their suffering,
Person A clearly intends to kill Person B.
 Oblique intention –
‘That’s not what I meant
to happen……..’
‘Really?’

 The leading test for oblique intention can

 So, in other words, if a defendant is
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
be found in Woolin [1999]:
 “The consequences must be virtually certain
to occur and the defendant must appreciate
this.”
“virtually certain” that their
behaviour/actions will cause a certain
result, and they are aware of this fact, they
can be taken to have obliquely intended
that result, even if they did not directly
intend it.
  If there was no ‘aim, purpose or desire’ to
cause the result
 AND
 There is no oblique intent (satisfying the
Nedrick/Woollin test)

Not intentional?  A person may have been reckless. Some crimes

cannot be committed recklessly, ie theft or
murder.
 Lots of crimes can be committed either
intentionally or recklessly.

 The next lecture will discuss the mens rea of

recklessness.