General elements of liability

Elements of a Crime
MENS REA
 Aims and Objectives

By the end of the session, the student will be able to:

• UNDERSTAND that there are three different forms of mens

rea and that intention is the highest form.

• EXPLAIN that there are two different types of intention.

• CLEARLY ILLUSTRATE the law relating to oblique intention

with reference to appropriate case law.
Actus Reus & Mens Rea

• Remember that to be guilty of a crime there needs to be two

elements present:
• Actus reus – the guilty mind/the physical element.
• Mens rea – the guilty act/the mental element.

• Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not
constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind.

• Once both elements are established, the defendant will be

found CRIMINALLY LIABLE.
 Actus Reus & Mens Rea

• For each offence, the required mens rea will be different.

• For example, for murder the mens rea is an intention to

kill or cause GBH; for assault the mens rea is the intention
to cause another to fear immediate or unlawful personal
violence or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused.

• To be guilty of an offence, the defendant must have at

least the minimum mens rea required for the offence.
Mens Rea

There are different levels of mens rea. From

highest to lowest they are:

• Intention

• Recklessness

• Negligence
Intention

• Defined by the Courts in Mohan (1975):

• “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”.

• The defendant’s motive is irrelevant when

deciding intention.
Intention

• There are two types of intention:

• Direct intention
• the defendant wants a result and carries out an act to achieve
it.
• generally this is easier to prove based on the circumstances of
the crime.

• Indirect/Oblique intention
• the defendant doesn’t want the result that occurs but realises
that in acting as he does that there is a possibility that it will
happen.
Intention

• This form of intention can be illustrated in the case

of Hyam -v- DPP (1975).

• Hyam set fire to a newspaper and put it through the

letterbox of a house belonging to Mrs Booth in order to
frighten her. She was jealous because Mrs Booth was
going out with her boyfriend. Mrs Booth’s two children
were in the house and died in the subsequent fire. Hyam
had just wanted to frighten Mrs Booth and had no
intention to hurt anyone. However, it is reasonably likely
when you set fire to a house that someone will be hurt.
Intention

• This type of intention has been built up through case law largely
based around the Criminal Justice Act 1967 s 8.

• With indirect intention, the defendant intends one thing but

another thing happens. The issue has been whether the
defendant foresaw the consequences of his actions.
Intention

• Foresight of consequences is referred to in Criminal Justice Act

1967 s8:

• “A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed

an offence:
• Shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw
a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural
and probably consequence of those actions; but
• Shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by
reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from
the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances”.

• The issue is whether the defendant intended or foresaw death

or really serious injury occurring as a result of his actions.
Intention

• Moloney (1985)
• Defendant and step-father were very drunk. They had
a race to see who could load a shotgun the fastest.
The defendant won. The step-father dared him to pull
the trigger and he did, thus killing his step-father. He
claimed he never intended to kill him.

• HoL held that foresight of consequences is only

evidence of intention and not the intention itself.
• Guidelines given in Moloney (1985).

• Lord Bridge stated that the questions to be asked were:

Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence

of the defendant’s act?

and

• Did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a

natural result of his act?

• Lord Bridge only used the word ‘natural’ and didn’t

refer to the word ‘probable’ as defined in the CJA 1967 s
8.
 Intention

• Hancock & Shankland (1986)

• Defendants were striking miners. They wanted to stop other
miners from going to work so pushed a concrete block off a
bridge onto the road below to block the road. The block hit the
front of a car and killed the driver. The judge put the Moloney
guidelines to the jury and the defendants were convicted of
murder. This was quashed on appeal.
 Intention

• Guidelines from Hancock & Shankland (1986):

• Lord Scarman stated that the Moloney guidelines were

unsafe and misleading as probability was not mentioned.

• He said that the “greater the probability of a consequence

the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and
that if that consequence was foreseen the greater the
probability is that that consequence was also intended”.

Mens Rea
Intention

• Nedrick (1986)
• The defendant poured paraffin through a woman’s letterbox and
set it alight. A child died in the ensuing fire. The defendant was
originally convicted of murder but this was reduced to
manslaughter on appeal.

The judge tried to clarify the law in the two previous cases and
said that the jury needed to ask 2 questions:

• How probable was the consequence which resulted from the

defendant’s voluntary act?
and
• Did the defendant foresee that consequence?
Intention

• Model direction from Nedrick (1986):

• “The jury should be directed that they are not

entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they
feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a
virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen
intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions
and that the defendant appreciated that such was
the case”.
Intention

• Woollin (1998)
• The Defendant threw his 3 month old baby towards the
pram which was by the wall. The baby suffered head
injuries and died.

• The court dismissed the 2 questions from Nedrick but

used the model direction changing the word ‘infer’ to
‘find’ as they felt this would clarify the law.

Mens Rea
Intention

• Matthew & Alleyne (2003)

• Defendants dropped the victim 25 feet off a bridge into a
river despite him telling them that he couldn’t swim. The
victim tried to make his way towards the river bank but the
defendants left before he reached it and he drowned.

• Following Woollin, foresight of consequences is not

intention but is a rule of evidence. If the jury decide the
defendant foresaw death or really serious injury as a virtual
certainty then they are entitled to FIND intention but are
not obligated to do so.
Intention

• The question of whether indirect/ oblique intention exists is

complicated. It has been confused by a variety of model
directions from different judges.

• It is for the jury to decide whether oblique intention exists

based on the evidence as presented to them.

• It is a subjective notion based on what the jury believe that the

defendant knew or foresaw at the time of the crime.
Intention

• Now, put all of your books and work to one side.

• In small groups, write down on a piece of paper as much as

you can remember about the case law development of
oblique intention.

• You have 10 minutes to do this, starting NOW!