mens rea

Define men’s Rea

Guilty mind mental element of the crime

D needs to have commited the actus reus whilst having the required men’s Rea at the same time

Main types of men’s Rea

intention subjective recklessness negligence

Specific intent

Crimes that have only intentional as men’s Rea

Basic intent

Less serious crimes have an option of either intention or subjective recklessness

Strict liability

Do not require proof of a men’s Rea for one of more parts of the actus reus

Direct intention

Ds aims or purpose is to bring about the prohibited consequences or conduct

Oblique intention

D claims he or she did not desire the prohibited consequences but had another aim in mind

Subjective recklessness

D is aware of the risk of the prohibited consequences or conduct but does it ANWAYS

Negligence

D fails to reach the standards of reasonable person

Direct intention case

• D has a particular aim or purpose in mind when carrying out the actus reus.

• Rv Mohan (1976)

• "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

• R v White (1910)

• Intended to kill his mother as he deliberately gave her poison so that she would die.

R v woolins

(Woollin not guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter. Court of Appeal did not think he foresaw as virtually certain either death or gbh.)

R v Cunningham

He did not

have subjective recklessne ss as he was not aware of the risk of harm when he tore the gas meter off the wall to steal the money.

R v adomako

R v Adomako

• A in not noticing the disconnected oxygen and not re-attaching it, failed to reach the standards of the reasonable anesthetist and so was negligent.

Transferred malice

• This is the principle that the detendant can be guilty it he or she had the mens rea to commit a crime but against a different victim.

• This is when the malice is moved or transterred from the intended victi m to the actual victim.

Offences of the same kind

Person to person

R v Latimer

The mens rea could be moved from the intended victim X, to the actual victim, Y as the offences were of the same kind, offences against the person.

R v Pembliton

R v Pembliton (1874)

• The mens rea for offence against the person (battery) could not be transferred to an offence against property

(criminal damage) as not of same kind.

The contemporaneity rule

Actus reus and men’s reus must happen together at the same time

Fagan v MPC continuing act

• Actus reus continued all the time the car was on the foot. Mens rea of intention was formed when F realised the car was on the foot and so this coincided with the actus reus.

One transaction

Men’s Rea comes first

R v Thabo Meli

R v Thabo Meli (1954)

• As there was a plan the mens rea came first. Then there was a series of events that were connected together as one transaction which formed the actus reus so they coincided with the mens rea.

Strict liability alphacell v Woodward

Alphacell v Woodward (1972)

• Although the company had not been negligent it was guilty as no mens rea was needed for the act of pollution as it was a strict liability offence.

Smedleys v breed

• Despite having shown they had taken all reasonable care, D was guilty of selling unfit food os this was o strict liability offence requiring no mens rea.

• (in 1990 the defence of due diligence was introduced in the Food Safety Act, so they may not be guilty nowadays)

Harrow v shah

• D was found guilty as the the act of selling the ticket to someone who was actually under 16 was sufficient without a mens rea.

Advantages of strict liability

• A main advantage is that this saves court time and money. D is more likely to plead guilty to these offences.

• Also said to act as a deterrent and encourage people to take steps to avid committing these crimes.

• Alphacell v Woodward (1972)

• Promoting high standards in protecting the environment.

• (pollution - environment)

• Smedleys v Breed (1974)

• Promoting high standards of care in production of food.

• (canning/food safety)

• Harrow v Shah (1999)

• Protecting the young from harm

• (gambling)

Disadvantages of strict liability

• 1. Injustice

Means it is unfair as there is liability without fault.

D may have exercised due diligence (reasonable care) but not a defence in most cases. e.g. Harrow v Shah all reasonable care taken to avoid selling of the ticket to underage children.

• 2. No deterrent

To put people off. Does not work if D is unaware of the circumstances so cannot avoid the wrongdoing. e.g. Alphacell v Woodward, D did not know there was a blockage in the pipe.

• 3. Stigma

A criminal record carries stigma (shame). Can damage reputation although D not at fault. E.g. Smedleys, where a caterpillar was in a tin of peas.