What is a Mens Rea?
Mens rea defined is the 'guilty mind' and refers to the state of mind the person was in when committing a crime. The state of mind varies from crime to crime but there are two main states of mind which individually or both together constitute the necessary mens rea for a criminal offence: Intention and Recklessness
The difference can be illustrated with one test being subjective (what the actual D was thinking) or objective (what a reasonable person in the D's position would of thought)
Intention
Intention is purely subjective and so focuses on what the particular D was thinking at the time of the event.
There are two types of intention:
Direct: Where the D desired the end result
In R v Mohan, the D accelerated his car towards a police officer causing the V to jump out of the way. It was held that the D must be proved to have specifically intended to cause the V GBH, really serious harm, through driving his car at the officer.
Oblique (Indirect intent): Where the end result is virtually certain but not desired for its own sake
R v Woolin: Woollin was convicted of murdering his three month old son. He was alleged to have lost his temper and hurled him onto the kitchen floor, causing him to fracture his skull and die.
The HL said that the jury may find intent on the part of the defendant where:
1. death or gbh was virtually certain to result from the accused’s acts; and
2. the accused actually foresaw this.
Recklessness (Subjective test following R v G and another)
Recklessness is taking an unjustified risk.
R v Cunningham
While attempting to steal money from a gas meter, Cunningham ripped the meter off the wall, allowing gas to escape and endanger the life of a neighbour. He could only be found guilty of “maliciously administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life” if he acted deliberately to endanger life, or if he recklessly endangered life. To be reckless he has to see the risk and then choose to take that risk. It is conscious risk-taking. Cunningham was found not guilty as he had not seen the risk involved.
Transferred Malice
Where a person has the mens rea of one crime, and commits the actus reus of the same crime, although not in the way he expected, he can still be found guilty. The rule operates only where it is the same type of offence the D wishes to commit on either the person or object. TM can transfer person to person or object to object.
R v Latimer: There was no requirement that the mens rea of a crime should relate to a named victim and so mens rea could be transferred
R v Pembliton: Mens rea unable to transfer from person to object or object to person. (Stone to window(Criminal damage) not the same as hitting a person(Battery))
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
The defendant must possess the necessary mens rea at the time the actus reus is committed
(a) the actus
reus comes before the mens rea
Sometimes the defendant will argue that he lacked mens rea when he first committed the offence. In such cases the court will rule that the actus reus is a “continuing act”, and that the defendant is guilty if he had the mens rea at any time during the continuing act.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - Driving the car onto the constable’s foot and then leaving it there was one continuous act. He was liable as long as he had the necessary mens rea at some stage during that continuing act. He formed the mens rea when he decided to leave the car on his foot.
(b) where the
mens rea comes before the actus reus
At other times the defendant will argue that the mens rea came first, but was over before he committed the actus reus.
Thabo Meli v R - It was enough for the prosecution to show that at some time during this chain of events the defendants had mens rea.
