Principles of Criminal Liability

1
Principles of Criminal Liability

• Mens Rea

2
Lesson Objectives

• I will be able to identify the mens rea of a
  crime
• I will be able to distinguish between intention
  and recklessness
• I will be able to distinguish between direct and
  indirect intention
• I will be able to describe intention using
  relevant authority

3
Principle of mens rea

• Many crimes need actus reus and also mens rea.
  The mens rea is the guilty mind and is often the
  distinguishing factor between different crimes
  e.g. section 18 and 20 of the OAPA 1861
• Mens rea must be distinguished from the motive.
  Motive may give an indication of the mens rea,
  but it is generally irrelevant.
• Motive will only be relevant in certain crimes
  such as racially motivated assault.
• The only mens rea that you will need to know
  about are intention and subjective recklessness.

4
Intention

• Can either be direct or oblique (indirect)
• The idea that a person will be guilty of a crime
  if he intends to perform a criminal act is
  perfectly reasonable
• Direct intent was seen in Mohan (1976) it was
  said that direct intention is a decision to bring
  about, so far as it lies in the defendants
  powers, the criminal consequence, no matter
  whether the defendant desired that consequence of
  his act or not
• Mohan (1976) this case is an example of, and
  gives a definition of, direct intent

5

• Difficulties arise when the defendant's aim is
  something different to the actual consequence.
  This is known as oblique intent the defendant
  intended the act, but not the consequences
  example
• The jury in a criminal trial must have a clear
  direction from the judge as to how they should
  decide whether the defendant had the necessary
  intention.
• The leading case on this is Woollin (1998) sets
  out the virtual certainty test for oblique
  intention

6

• The court stated a two-part test to decide
  whether the defendant had oblique intent. This
  test allows the court or jury to infer intention
  if
• A) the consequence is a virtually certain result
  of the act and
• B) the defendant knows that this is a virtually
  certain consequence
• Matthews and Alleyne (2003) confirms that the
  virtual certainty test in Woollin allows the jury
  to infer (draw as a conclusion) intention

7
Recklessness

• Some crimes require the lower level of mens rea
  of recklessness. The type of recklessness that is
  used is subjective recklessness.
• This occurs where the defendant knows there is a
  risk of the criminal consequence, is willing to
  take it and takes it deliberately.
• This is also difficult to establish as it
  requires looking at what was in the defendant's
  mind.
• The leading case on this is Cunningham (1957)

8

• Cunningham (1957) sets out the essential
  definition of subjective recklessness which is
  used in the mens rea of many crimes
• The court defined recklessness as
• being reckless as to whether such harm should
  occur or not (that is the accused has foreseen
  that the particular kind of harm might be done,
  and yet has gone on to take the risk of it). It
  is neither limited to, nor does it indeed
  require, any ill-will towards the person injured.