7 Key excerpts on "Mens Rea"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Criminal Law

  • Jacqueline Martin(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  3

  Mens Rea

  The different levels of intention are shown in the chart below.

    3.1  

  Mental element

  Mens Rea means the mental element of an offence. Each offence has its own Mens Rea. The prosecution must prove that the accused had the relevant Mens Rea for the offence charged. There are different levels of Mens Rea.

  To be guilty the accused must have at least the minimum level of Mens Rea required by the offence. As there are different levels of Mens Rea, it is difficult to define. It is easier to say what Mens Rea is not.

  1     Mens Rea is not the same as motive.

  2     It does not mean an ‘evil’ mind.

  3     It does not require knowledge that the act was forbidden by law.

    3.2  Intention

  1     Intention is the highest level of Mens Rea. It is also referred to as specific intention.

  2     Intention has never been defined by Parliament, but the Draft Criminal Code suggested the following definition:

  ‘… a person acts intentionally with respect to a result when he acts either in order to bring it about or being aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events’.

  3     One judicial definition is ‘a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power (the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not’ (

  Mohan (1976)

  ).

  4     Intention can be divided into:

  •   direct intent; and

  •   oblique intent (foresight of consequences).

  5     Direct intent is also known as purposive intent. The defendant has a certain aim or result in mind and intends to achieve that result.

  6

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Beginning Criminal Law

  • Claudia Carr, Maureen Johnson(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 3 Mens Rea

  Learning Objectives

  By the end of the chapter, you should be able to:

  • Demonstrate an understanding of the Mens Rea of a crime
  • Appreciate the test to be applied to determine intention
  • Understand the current legal test or recklessness
  • Demonstrate a knowledge of the background of the law as it stands today
  • Appreciate what amounts to a strict liability offence and understand the strict liability role offences play in the criminal law

  Introduction

  In Chapter 1 we referred to two elements of a crime, the actus reus and the Mens Rea which originate from the Latin phrase, ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ . The principle explains that a man is not liable for his acts alone, unless he acts with a guilty mind. In this chapter we consider in more detail the Mens Rea or the ‘guilty mind’.

  It is for the prosecution to prove the Mens Rea of the offence the defendant is charged with. If the prosecution is unable to prove the Mens Rea , the defendant cannot be liable for the offence. The only offences where the prosecution need not prove the Mens Rea , as we shall see, are offences of strict liability.

  There are different forms of Mens Rea , the most culpable being intention and the least culpable strict liability. It follows that those who commit offences with intention are naturally more morally blameworthy than those who commit offences negligently. Negligence as such is not a form of Mens Rea as it refers to a standard of behaviour or conduct which falls below that which a reasonable man would ordinarily expect, rather than a specific state of mind. We therefore only consider negligence briefly in this chapter.

  Figure 3.1 Diagram illustrating forms of Mens Rea

  Intention

  Criminal offences which require intention as its Mens Rea are often the most serious offences. For example, where the offence of murder is concerned, the prosecution must be able to prove the defendant intended

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Criminal Lawcards 2012-2013

  • Routledge(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Mens Rea either.

  THE NATURE OF Mens Rea

  Definition

  The term Mens Rea refers to the mental element in the definition of a crime. This mental element is usually denoted by words such as ‘intentionally’, ‘knowingly’, ‘recklessly’, ‘maliciously’ or ‘negligently’, depending on the definition of the crime.

  INTENTION

  The Mens Rea required for some of the most serious crimes such as murder and wounding or causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 is intention. Intention has an ordinary meaning and a more complex meaning when applied in criminal law. The ordinary meaning is known as ‘direct intent’. The defendant intends to do something if that is their purpose. This ordinary definition of intention will be sufficient in most cases.

  The more complex meaning is often called ‘oblique intent’ by writers (but not by the courts). This covers the situation where the consequence was not the defendant’s purpose but was something that occurred as a result of the defendant’s actions. In other words, it covers events which were a side effect of the defendant’s actions.

  So, if the defendant gave the victim poison with the purpose of killing them then that would be a case of direct intent. There would be no problem in saying that the defendant had the Mens Rea of intention. If, however, the defendant jumped on the victim’s back with the purpose of surprising the victim but out of shock that killed them that would possibly be a case of oblique intent.

  The courts have struggled with the question of when the jury can infer oblique intent. There are two key questions:

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The SAGE Encyclopedia of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology

  • Amy E. Wenzel(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  David Carson David Carson Carson, David

  Judith Mullineux Judith Mullineux Mullineux, Judith

  Mens Rea Mens Rea

  2070 2071

  Mens Rea

  To be guilty of a crime, within most legal systems, there must have been proscribed behavior, known as the actus reus (e.g., taking someone’s property), committed with a prohibited “state of mind,” known as the Mens Rea (e.g., acting dishonestly). This explanation is sufficient for many purposes, but it can be much more complicated. For example, the criminal act, or behavior, can sometimes be a failure to act (i.e., liability for an omission). And no translation of Mens Rea is entirely without problems.

  Many crimes do not require a Mens Rea (criminal state of mind). These tend to be less serious crimes. Committing the act, or behavior, is sufficient (e.g., driving at excess speed). These crimes are often known as strict liability offences. But it can be argued that all criminal acts, including strict liability, must be voluntary. For example, if you lost control of your car because you were attacked by a swarm of bees, that could be considered involuntary. Thus, you did not commit the actus reus. You would not need to claim a lack of Mens Rea. Thus, in theory, if a mental health disorder were to render behavior involuntary, there should be no need to rely on absence of Mens Rea.

  Mens Rea regularly has nothing to do with the state of mind. It frequently refers to a quality of behavior. Lawyers distinguish subjective Mens Rea and objective Mens Rea. The former includes states of mind such as intention, knowledge, and foresight. These subjective Mens Rea require the jury, or other finder of facts, to identify them “in” the defendants. Invariably, they do this by inferring from proven behavior, including speech. The presence of a mental health disorder may make this more complex. Objective Mens Rea includes “states of mind” such as negligence and indifference. Here, the jury, or other finder of facts, must compare the quality of the defendant’s behavior (e.g., driving) against that of reasonable people, such as themselves (i.e., people without mental health disorders). With objective Mens Rea, there is no attempt to discover the nature or quality of what the defendant was thinking at the time of the offence. However, it is not always clear whether a Mens Rea expression is subjective or objective. For example, does recklessness require proof that the defendant was aware

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  French Criminal Law

  • Catherine Elliott(Author)
  • 2001(Publication Date)
  • Willan

    (Publisher)

  4

  Mens Rea

  Introduction

  Mens Rea in French law is called l’élément intellectuel , l’élément moral or l’élément psychologique . A basic distinction is drawn in French law between those offences which require intention and those which do not. Where no intention is required, the Mens Rea requirement can be satisfied on proof of negligence, that a person was deliberately put in danger or that the conduct was voluntary. The serious crimes are always intentional, major offences are in principle intentional except contrary legislative provisions requiring a fault of negligence or of deliberately putting another in danger. Minor offences normally only require that the accused behaved voluntarily. Each of the different forms of Mens Rea will be considered in turn.

  Intention

  The first paragraph of article 121–3 of the Criminal Code states:

  There is no serious crime or major crime in the absence of an intention to commit it.1

  The Ministry of Justice prepared a circular which provides an extensive commentary of the articles in the new Criminal Code.2 This points out that while there was no equivalent article in the old criminal code, the general principle it contained had guided those who had drafted the original code and had been recognised by the judges. Paragraph 1 of article 121–3 was therefore merely clarifying the existing position.

  Article 121–3(1) provides that all offences categorised as serious or major crimes will always need a mental element of intention even if the Code or other form of legislation defining the offence does not make direct reference to this requirement; while minor offences will only require intention if specific reference to this is made in the definition of the offence. For example, the offence of violence causing less than eight days incapacity to work is a minor offence which the legislature has specified requires intention.3

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Understanding Criminal Law

  • Rodger Geary(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Routledge-Cavendish

    (Publisher)

  R v Roberts (1971), the Court of Appeal held that the chain of causation would not be broken by a victim’s actions in trying to escape from the defendant’s unlawful acts, provided the victim’s actions were the reasonably foreseeable consequence of what the defendant had said or done.

  It should be noted that the reasonable foreseeability test in relation to causation will not require the victim’s characteristics to be attributed to the reasonable person as the defendant’s characteristics are attributed for the purposes of defences, such as provocation (R v Marjoram (1999)). It is important to distinguish between proof of actus reus, where the test is purely objective, and that of Mens Rea, where the objective reasonable person test can be subjectively modified by attributing to the reasonable person the defendant’s characteristics. The test, as far as actus reus is concerned, is simply this: would a reasonable person have foreseen the escape attempt as a possible outcome?

  Mens Rea

  Definition

  The term Mens Rea refers to the mental element in the definition of a crime. This mental element is usually denoted by words such as ‘intentionally’, ‘knowingly’, ‘maliciously’,‘recklessly’ or ‘negligently’.

  Intention

  There are two types of intention often mentioned by writers of textbooks on criminal law: direct and indirect (or oblique). Generally, crimes which require that the defendant acts intentionally can be committed with either type of intention.

  The Quest for a Clear Concept of Intention

  It is somewhat surprising, given the central place which the concept of intention holds in legal theory, that not only is there no legislative definition, but also that judicial attempts to develop a definition have suffered from lack of certainty, inconsistency and disagreement. Nicola Lacey has suggested that this state of affairs is the rather unsatisfactory result of the courts attempting to establish a compromise solution between those who emphasise the importance of conceptual analysis, and those who appeal to common sense meanings (Lacey, N, ‘A clear concept of intention: elusive or illusory?’ [1993] MLR 621).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Corporate Criminality and Liability for Fraud

  • Alison Cronin(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  4      Mens Rea, metaphysics and the manifest assessment of fault 4.1 Subjective individualism and the presumption of intention The way in which the law has developed in relation to fault attribution has had a profound effect in relation to the development of theories of corporate criminality. The combined effect of the demise of the presumption of voluntariness and the expanded concept of Mens Rea has led to the primary enquiry focusing on the defendant’s state of mind, a metaphysical mind that the fictional corporate entity simply cannot possess. However, given that the need to prove Mens Rea has been the real hurdle to corporate prosecution, typical academic accounts of the law’s approach to corporate criminality fail to acknowledge that “Mens Rea” has not been constant in terms of either its substantive meaning or the way in which it is attributed to the defendant and proved. While Chapter 3 addressed the former dynamic and the presumption relating to the voluntariness doctrine, this chapter addresses that lacuna in the context of other mental states. It will be recalled that proof of the orthodox canons of liability turned upon the operation of two evidential presumptions. Chapter 3 identified the combination of factors which led to the demise of the presumption of voluntariness and this chapter will reveal how the presumption of intention suffered a similar fate. According to this presumption, a defendant was presumed to have intended the natural consequences of his act. This conclusion was based on the assumption that an act foreseen was an act intended and, further, that the defendant had the mental capacity of a reasonable man such that he would have foreseen what were deemed its natural consequences. The presumption of intention of natural consequences, like that of voluntariness, presupposed that an initial consideration of the appearance of the conduct had taken place

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book