rea guilty mind Not the same as motive 2 types of mens rea Intention Subjective recklessness Depending on the crime they will require D to have eitheror one of the two Direct ID: 652450
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Mens Rea - 1 General Mens" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Mens Rea - 1Slide2
General
Mens
rea
=
guilty mind
Not the same as motive
2 types of
mens
rea
:
Intention
Subjective recklessness
Depending on the crime, they will require D to have
either/or
one of the twoSlide3
Direct Intent
Intend to commit the criminal act
Mohan
– direct intention is
the decision to bring about the criminal consequence
D’s
aim or purpose
Direct intent is relatively straightforward to see when it is thereSlide4
Indirect or Oblique Intent
Indirect Intent = where D’s
aim is something different to the actual consequence
Woollin
– set out a test for the jury to consider where P is relying on indirect intent for
mens
rea
:
Was the consequence a
virtually certain result
of the act
Did
D know
that it was virtually certain (
subjective
)
Matthews and
Alleyne
– confirmed the test in
Woollin
but this
doesn’t prove intent
– only something from which the
jury can infer intentSlide5
Recklessness
Lower level of
mens
rea
than intent
Not for all offences – e.g. murder needs intent
Has to be Subjective
recklessness –
D must know
there is a
risk of the consequence
but takes the risk deliberately
Cunningham
– D broke a pre-gas meter to steal the money in it, with the result that the gas escaped into the next-door house. Neighbour became ill – D charged with administering a noxious substance. Court defined recklessness as:
D foresees
that the particular kind of harm might be done
D has gone on to
take the risk anyway
Do no need any ill will towards V
In the case of
Cunningham
he was found not-guilty as it could not be shown that he knew there was a risk of harming anyoneSlide6
Steps when applying Mens Rea
Is there direct intent - the decision to bring about the criminal consequence
If not, is there indirect intent?:
Was the consequence a
virtually certain result
of the act?
Did
D know
that it was virtually certain? (
subjective
)
If not, is there subjective recklessness?
Does D foresee
that the particular kind of harm might be done?
Has D gone on to
take the risk anyway?