Mens Rea
Mens rea means a guilty state of mind. The two most important types are intention and recklessness.
INTENTION
Direct intent was defined in Mohan as “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the commission of the offence …”
Oblique intention is where a person foresees a consequence of his actions but does not desire it for its own sake. An example was given by Lord Bridge in Moloney:
“A man, who, at London airport, boards a plane which he knows to be bound for Manchester, clearly intends to travel to Manchester, even though Manchester is the last place he wants to be and his motive for boarding the plane is simply to escape pursuit. The possibility that the plane may have engine trouble and be diverted to Luton does not affect the matter. By boarding the Manchester plane, the man conclusively demonstrates his intention to go there, because it is a moral certainty that that is where he will arrive.”
The “virtual certainty” test from Nedrick is used to decide if there is evidence of oblique intention.
This test was endorsed by the House of Lords in Woollin.
A recent case example of oblique intent is Matthews and Alleyne.
RECKLESSNESS
This is the taking of an unjustified risk. This is also known as subjective or Cunningham recklessness, which means that the prosecution must prove that the defendant realised s/he was taking a risk.
Following the decision of the House of Lords in R v Gemmell & Richards, this is the only approach to recklessness. In this case, two boys aged 11 and 12 set fire to newspapers which they threw under a large wheelie bin. The bin caught fire and spread to the shop and other buildings. Their convictions were quashed as they thought the fire would extinguish itself.
An example of a defendant being reckless is DPP v K.
COINCIDENCE OF ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA
The Contemporaneity Rule
The prosecution must prove that mens rea existed when the actus reus was committed. This is known as the contemporaneity rule and has been interpreted in two ways:
- Continuing act where the actus reus is committed over a period of time as in Fagan v MPC, and mens rea is present at some point during its commission.
- A chain or series of events as in Thabo Meli v R.
Transferred Malice
Under the doctrine of transferred malice, mens rea may be transferred from an intended victim to an unintended one as in: Latimer, where the defendant hit victim number one with his belt. However, it recoiled off him, severely injuring victim number two, an innocent bystander. The defendant’s conviction was 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 mens rea should relate to a named victim.
However, mens rea cannot be transferred for a different actus reus as shown by: Pembliton – The defendant threw a stone at another person during an argument. The stone missed the intended victim, but instead broke a nearby window. His conviction for malicious damage to property was quashed. The court held that the doctrine of transferred malice was inapplicable where the defendant’s intention had not been to cause the type of harm that actually occurred. His intention to assault another person could not be used as the mens rea for the damage that he had caused to the window.