THE MENS REA OF A CRIME
2013/14
In addition to proving that the ACTUS REUS exists, in most cases it will also
be necessary to show that the defendant has committed the offence with the
relevant MENS REA.
State of mind of the person committing the crime
This is the mental element, or degree of blameworthiness, required by the
offence in question. The mens rea for each offence will be laid down in the
relevant statute, or, in the case of common law offences will have been
formulated by the judges developing the crime in question.
INTENTION
In relation to the most serious criminal offences, the prosecution will normally
need to prove a high degree of blameworthiness. The defendant will only be
found guilty if it is shown that he INTENDED to commit the crime in question.
This form of mens rea is necessary before the offence of murder is
established. The person accused will only be convicted if the jury is convinced
that he:
‘INTENDED to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.’
Intention is also needed for the crime of theft.
The defendant will not be guilty of this offence unless it is shown that he
appropriated property belonging to another, with the INTENTION of
permanently depriving the other of it'.
Other crimes do not necessarily require such a high degree of fault. They can
be committed:
 INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY.
Examples of these are assault, battery, assault
occasioning actual bodily harm In a small
number of cases, it is enough to establish
negligence
INTENTION V MOTIVE
Intention to commit a crime should not be confused with motive. The defendant
may feel that he is quite justified in committing the crime – his MOTIVE for
stealing food from a shop may be hunger but provided that the intention to
commit the crime is present the MENS REA will have been established & his
motive will be irrelevant at this point.
The D will have to hope that his motive for committing his offence will be taken
into account when___________________________________.
DIRECT AND OBLIQUE INTENTION
DIRECT INTENT
In many cases it will not be too difficult for the jury to decide on the intention
of the accused; it will be clear from the circumstances. This is referred to in
law as a 'DIRECT INTENT'.
The jury accept that the main purpose of the defendant was to bring about the
consequence, so the DEFENDANT INTENDED THE CONSEQUENCE OF HIS
ACT
E.g., X put a gun at Y’s head and blows his head off
MOHAN 1975
Here it was clear from the evidence that D’s main aim was to seriously
injure a police officer when he accelerated hard at him (DIRECT INTENT).
INDIRECT OR OBLIQUE INTENT
It is another form of intent, known as 'oblique intent’ that has caused the
problems in this area of law.
This is where the CONSEQUENCE WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE
DEFENDANT’S ACTION
E.g.,
X places a bomb under V’s airplane seat set to blow up when the plane is 30,000
ft up over the Atlantic.
The consequence X wants is V’s death, but what about the other passengers &
crew? The other deaths are almost an inevitable consequence. If D bothered to
think about it he would conclude that their deaths are practically certain, so has
he INTENDED the deaths of the other passengers & the crew???????
The word 'intention', therefore, has been widened and in some
instances will also cover a situation where the defendant's
purpose or desire was different from the actual consequences of
his act.
Ultimately, it will be up to the jury to decide what the D intended at the
time of his act.
THE DEFINITION OF OBLIQUE INTENTION
The meaning of oblique intention is not found in statute but in judicial
decisions
DPP V SMITH 1961
FACTS: D was driving his car and was ordered to stop by a policeman. He failed
to do so, policeman jumped on the bonnet of the car, D swerved and sped off to
avoid the policeman, he was thrown off and killed.
HL: upheld the conviction, deciding that the D had the necessary intention
for murder if an ordinary REASONABLE MAN, in similar circumstances
would have contemplated the end result. IE AN OBJECIVE TEST
Following DPP V SMITH an objective test had been laid down for establishing
intention in murder cases This means that a conviction did not rest on what the
D thought about the possible consequences of his actions, but what a
REASONABLE PERSON would have thought had they been present at the time
of the incident.
This approach was strongly criticised by the Law Commission. – WHY????
On the advice of this body (the Law Commission) the Criminal Justice Act 1967
s8 was drawn up and 2 things were made clear in this:
 Intention in criminal cases should be assessed subjectively meaning
that the jury must decide what the actual defendant intended
or foresaw, & not looked at from the viewpoint of the reasonable
man as suggested by SMITH.
&
 If D can foresee the consequence (death or GBH) this is only
evidence that D intended the consequence it does NOT mean he
intended the consequence
The current state of the law on intention in murder was expressed by the Court
of Appeal in the case of:
NEDRICK 1986
FACTS:
HELD: The jury convicted him of murder using the then definition of OBLIQUE
INTENTION. The defendant appealed.
The appeal against the conviction was accepted and the COURT OF APPEAL laid
down the following guidelines if the D is denying DIRECT INTENTION:
“The jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the
necessary oblique intention unless they feel that:
i) Death or serious harm was a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY
AND
ii) D APPRECIATED THAT SUCH WAS THE CASE
If they are satisfied of i & ii then they MAY infer intention if they wish to
do so. From Murder
manslaughter
The judges in NEDRICK applied the law from the CJA saying that foresight of
consequence does not mean D intended that consequence it is just evidence of
intention that the prosecution & the jury can use.
The House of Lords followed the Court of Appeal in NEDRICK in the following
WOOLLIN 1998
FACTS: Killed 3 month old son-threw him against wall and fractured his
skull- died. Claimed real intention was to stop the baby from crying, not
kill.
The trial judge directed the jurors that they may infer intention
‘if they were satisfied that when the D threw the baby he appreciated that
there was a substantial risk that he would cause serious harm to it’
D was convicted & appealed.
He appealed on point of law- the trial judge didn’t apply law from Nedrick ,
the judge should have used the phrase ‘a virtual certainty’ rather than
‘a substantial risk’,
HL quashed the murder conviction and substituted one for manslaughter.
They stated “It is necessary to direct the jury that they may only find an
intention to do serious bodily harm if they are satisfied that:
I)
Death or Serious bodily harm was a VIRTUAL CERTAIN
CONSEQUENCE OF D’S VOLUNTARY ACT
II)
D APPRECIATED THAT FACT
&
R V MATTHEWS & ALLEYNE 2003
FACTS: D’s pushed their V from a bridge into a river knowing that he couldn’t
swim. He fell 25ft & drowned.
The trial judge told the jury that death was a virtual certainty & D had
appreciated this.
The D’s were convicted & appealed on the ground that the judges had said
things which might have led the jury to think that foresight & intention were
the same thing.
The CA repeated that they were not, that foresight is only evidence of
intention. However they thought that in this case the D’s awareness that
death was inevitable provided that evidence. The appeal was dismissed
 The HL decision in WOOLLIN has made the law more certain, but
it is still a long way from its ordinary meaning & this is bound to
cause confusion to the jury. There is also difficulty for the
prosecution in proving D’s state of mind if he denies the intended
consequence which occurred
 There are now clear instructions as to what a jury cannot do:
o They are not allowed to find a D guilty of murder unless
they are sure that Death or GBH was a VIRTUAL
CERTAIN CONSEQUENCE OF D’s ACT & D appreciated
that fact.