You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 11 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson covers mens rea — the "guilty mind" — the second essential element required to establish criminal liability for most offences. You need to understand the different levels of mens rea, how the courts have defined intention (both direct and oblique), the concept of recklessness, the doctrine of transferred malice, and the requirement that actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Mens rea | The mental element of a crime; the guilty mind or fault element |
| Direct intention | The defendant's aim, purpose, or desire to bring about the prohibited consequence |
| Oblique intention | The defendant does not desire the consequence but foresees it as a virtually certain result of their actions |
| Recklessness | The defendant foresees a risk of the prohibited consequence occurring and unreasonably takes that risk |
| Transferred malice | Where the defendant intends to commit a crime against one person but accidentally commits it against another, the mens rea transfers |
| Coincidence principle | The actus reus and mens rea must exist at the same point in time for liability to be established |
| Specific intent | Crimes that can only be committed with intention (e.g., murder, s.18 GBH, theft) |
| Basic intent | Crimes that can be committed with recklessness as well as intention (e.g., manslaughter, s.20 GBH, ABH) |
Mens rea literally means "guilty mind." It refers to the mental state that the prosecution must prove the defendant had at the time of committing the actus reus. Different offences require different levels of mens rea. The main levels, from most to least culpable, are:
The mens rea required for each offence is defined by statute or common law. For example:
Intention is the highest level of mens rea. The courts distinguish between direct intention and oblique intention.
Direct intention exists where the defendant's aim or purpose is to bring about the prohibited consequence. The defendant acts in order to achieve that result.
The defendant drove his car at a police officer who was attempting to stop him. He was charged with attempting to cause bodily harm by wanton driving. The Court of Appeal defined direct intention as:
"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."
Principle: Direct intention is a decision to bring about the prohibited result. It is the defendant's aim or purpose.
Oblique intention arises where the defendant does not desire the prohibited consequence as their primary aim, but the consequence is a virtually certain result of their actions and the defendant appreciated (foresaw) that this was the case.
Nedrick poured paraffin through the letterbox of a house and set it alight, intending to frighten the occupant. A child died in the resulting fire. The Court of Appeal held that the jury should be directed to consider two questions:
If the answer to both questions is "yes," the jury may infer (but are not bound to find) that the defendant intended the result.
Woollin lost his temper and threw his three-month-old baby onto a hard surface, causing fatal head injuries. He claimed he had not intended to kill or cause serious harm. The House of Lords largely approved the Nedrick direction but substituted the word "find" for "infer." Lord Steyn stated:
"Where the jury are satisfied that the defendant appreciated that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions, the jury may find that the defendant intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm."
Principle (the Woollin direction): A jury may find intention where: (1) the prohibited consequence was a virtual certainty, and (2) the defendant appreciated this fact.
flowchart TD
A[Was it the defendant's aim or purpose to cause the result?] -->|Yes| B[Direct intention established — R v Mohan]
A -->|No| C{Was the result a virtually certain consequence of D's act?}
C -->|No| D[Intention NOT established — consider recklessness]
C -->|Yes| E{Did D appreciate that the result was virtually certain?}
E -->|No| D
E -->|Yes| F[Jury may FIND oblique intention — R v Woollin]
Exam Tip: The Woollin test does not create a rule that foresight of virtual certainty equals intention. It permits the jury to find intention — this is a crucial distinction. The jury retains a "moral elbow room" not to find intention even where the test is satisfied.
Recklessness is a lower level of mens rea than intention. It applies to many offences, particularly basic intent crimes. The current test for recklessness in English law is subjective — based on what the defendant themselves foresaw.
Cunningham tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house to steal money inside. Gas escaped and seeped through to the neighbouring house, partially asphyxiating his future mother-in-law. He was charged under s.23 OAPA 1861 with "maliciously" administering a noxious substance. The Court of Appeal held that "maliciously" required either:
Principle: Subjective recklessness (Cunningham recklessness) requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant personally foresaw the risk and unreasonably took it.
For a period, the law recognised objective recklessness (the Caldwell test), which asked whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk, regardless of whether the defendant did. This test was heavily criticised and was overruled by the House of Lords in:
Two boys aged 11 and 12 set fire to newspapers in a wheelie bin in a yard behind a shop. The fire spread and caused approximately £1 million of damage. They were charged with criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The trial judge applied the Caldwell objective test. The House of Lords overruled Caldwell and reinstated the Cunningham subjective test, holding that a defendant cannot be reckless if they genuinely did not foresee the risk, even if a reasonable person would have done so.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 11 lessons in this course.