Mens Rea 4r6d1o

c The prosecution must prove that the defendant committed the actus reus while in a certain state of mind. The mens rea (guilty state of mind) required before a person can be convicted of a crime is specified in the definition of every crime. There are three states of mind which separately or together can constitute the necessary mens rea for a criminal offence. These are: 1. ×ntention 2. Recklessness 3. Negligence x × ¦ Two types of intention ¦ (purpose intent) - is the typical situation where the consequences of a person͛s actions are desired. asic means direct intention ʹ no lesser forms of punishment ½ (foresight intent) ʹ covers the situation where the consequence is foreseen by the defendant as virtually certain, although it is not desired for its own sake, and the defendant goes ahead with his actions anyway. ^pecific means a parson can foresee that there is damage ʹ can be decrease punishment Œ An aero plane owner decides to make a fraudulent insurance claim on one of his planes. a) Ñe plants a bomb on it knowing that when it explodes, some engers will certainly die but he does not mind and wants this to happen as it will make his claim more realistic. This is - the consequences of his actions (the death of the engers) are desired. b) Alternatively he knows that some engers will certainly die, although he can honestly say that he does not want them to die, and would be delighted if they all survived! This is ʹ the consequences (the death of engers) were not what he planned, but he nevertheless knew that they would inevitably follow from his actions in blowing up the plane.

ÿ The defendant and his stepfather drank a large quantity of alcohol at a dinner party. A few hours later they had a discussion about firearms, and had a shooting contest to see who could load and fire a shotgun faster. The defendant, who was unaware the gun was pointing at the victim, did this and killed his stepfather. Defendant was charged with murder. Ñ: on appeal the Ñouse of Lords quashed the murder conviction and substituted a verdict of manslaughter, on the ground that only intent to kill or cause really serious injury would be sufficient  for murder. ÿ ^triking miners threw a concrete block from a bridge onto a road, where it killed a taxi driver. Ñeld: on appeal a verdict of manslaughter was substituted by the Ñouse of Lords who reaffirmed that the prosecution has to establish an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm on the part of the defendant. ÿ ! The defendant lost his temper and threw his three months old son on to a hard surface. Ñis son sustained a fractured skull and died. Woolling was charged with murder. Ñe refused that he had intention to cause serious harm. Ñ : having regard to the mental element in murder, a jury was required to determine whether the defendant had intended to kill or do serious bodily harm. The conviction for murder was quashed and conviction for manslaughter substituted. x Recklessness is the taking of an unjustified risk. Ñowever, two different tests have been developed by the courts, the result of which is that recklessness now has two different legal meanings which apply to different offences. " The defendant knows that the risk or willing to take it and takes it deliberately. The question that must be asked is ͞was the risk in the defendant͛s mind at the time the crime was committed?͟ This test was established in:

# ! [1957] The defendant had broken a gas meter to steal the money in it with the result that gas escaped into the next-door house. The victim became ill and her life was endangered. The defendant was charged under s23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 with ͞maliciously istering a noxious thing so as to endanger life͟. Court of Appeal held: that for a defendant to have acted ͞maliciously͟ there had to be proof that he intended to cause the harm in question, or had been reckless as to whether such harm would be caused. ×n this context recklessness involved the defendant in being aware of the risk that his actions might cause the prohibited consequence. " The risk must be obvious to the reasonable man, in that any reasonable man would have realized it if he had thought about it. A person is reckless in the new wider sense when he performs an act which creates an obvious risk, and when performing the act, he has either given no thought to the possibility of such a risk arising or he recognized that some risk existed, but went on to take it. This test was established in: $##% [1982] The defendant got drunk and set fire to a hotel as an act of revenge against owner. The fire was discovered and put cut before very serious damage occurred. The defendant was convicted of damaging property with intent to endanger life or being reckless whether life would be endangered under s1(2) Criminal Damage Act (CDA 1971). Mens Rea required was intention or recklessness. Even though the defendant said that he was so drunk at the time that it had never cross his mind that he may be endangering his life, he was convicted as drunkenness cannot be a defence to a basic intent crime. The defendant was driving a car with a enger in the front seat. Ñe attempted to overtake another car whilst still in the nearside lane. A taxi drivers͛ rest hut protruded some six feet into the nearside lane. The defendant was convicted of causing death by reckless driving, contrary to s1 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. † The risk must be obvious to the reasonable prudent person; it need not be obvious to the defendant:

Œ # [1983] The defendant and educationally subnormal 14 year old school girl had entered a neighbor͛s garden shed, poured white sprit on the floor and ignited it. The defendant then fled as the shed burst into flames. The magistrates dismissed the charge of criminal damage on the basis that she gave no though to the risk of damage, and that even if she had, she would not have been capable of appreciating it. The prosecution appealed and Divisional Court, allowing the appeal, held that this was irrelevant to the issue of recklessness. When the court in Caldwell had talked about an ͞obvious͟ risk, they had meant obvious to the reasonable man if he had thought about it. x J Negligence consists of falling below the standard of the ordinary reasonable person. The test is objective, based on the hypothetical person and involves the defendant either doing something the reasonable person would not do, or not doing something which the reasonable person would do. ×t does not matter that the defendant was unaware that something dangerous might happen, if the ͞reasonable person͟ would have realized the risk, and taken steps to avoid it. # ! [1983] A learner driver was convicted of driving without due care and attention despite the fact that it was accepted by the court that he was ͞exercising all the skill and attention to be expected from a person with his short experience͟ because he had failed to attain the required standard. ? c Ënder the doctrine of transferred malice a defendant will be liable for an offence if he has the necessary mesn rea and commits the actus reus even if the victim differs from the one intended. The basis for this principle is the decision of the court in: &  (1886) The defendant struck a blow with his belt at X. the defendant was convicted of maliciously wounding the victim, and appealed on the ground that it had never been his intention to hurt her. Ñeld: tht the conviction would be affirmed. The defendant had committed the actus reus of the offence with the necessary mens rea, ie he had acted maliciously. There was no requirement in the relevant act that his mesn rea should relate to a named victim. Thus Latimer͛s malice was transferred from his intended to his unintended victim.

×t is a general principle in criminal law that for a person͛s liability to be established it must be shown that the defendant possessed the necessary mens rea at the time the actus reus was committed ʹ in other words the two must coincide. a) Continuing acts Where the actus reus involves a continuing act a later mens rea during its continuance can coincide. ù!$# [1969] The defendant accidently drove his car on to a policeman͛s foot and when he realized, he refused to remove it immediately. Ñeld: that the actus reus of the assault was a continuing act which, while started without mens rea, was still in progress at the time the mesn rea was formed and so there was a coincidence of actus reus and mens rea sufficient to found criminal liability. b) Chain of events The second way the courts have dealt with the problem is to consider a chain of events (i.e. a continuing series of acts) to be a continuing actus reus for the purposes of the criminal law. ×f the actus reus and the mens rea are both present at some time during this chain of events, then there is liability. ? [1954] The defendant had taken their intended victim to a hut and plied him with drink so that he became intoxicated. They then hit the victim around the head, intending to kill him. ×n fact the defendants only succeeded in knocking him unconscious but believing the victim to be dead, they threw his body over a cliff. The victim survived but died of exposure some time later. The defendant were convicted of murder, and appealed to the Privy Council on the ground that there had been no coincidence of the mens rea and actus reus of murder. The Privy Council held that the correct view of what the defendants had done was to treat the chain of events as a continuing actus reaus. The actus reus of causing death started with the victim being stuck on the head and continued until he died of exposure. ×t was sufficient for the prosecution to establish that at some time during that chain of events the defendants had acted with the requisite mens rea.