Certified Loner's Research

Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): refers to the mental state or the defendant’s awareness of the
act they are committing.
This term means that a person‘s wrongful act should be associated with blame-worthy
attitude of mind. This is loosely translated as a guilty mind.
The general rule in criminal law is that a conviction requires proof of both actus reus
and mens rea. In many serious crimes, the requirement of mens rea is essential to
establish the defendant’s culpability and the seriousness of their offense. Crimes like
murder (Woolmington vs dpp)
The principle of criminal liability often assumes that people should only be punished
if they had both the intent or mental state to commit the crime and the physical action.
The requirement of mens rea helps to distinguish between those who engage in criminal
behavior with knowledge and intent, and those who act unintentionally or carelessly.
In the case of R v Cunningham (1957), the court clarified the necessity of mens rea in
determining criminal liability. In this case, Cunningham was charged with maliciously
administering a noxious substance. The defendant had ripped a gas meter from a wall,
causing a gas leak that poisoned his mother-in-law. The court held that Cunningham
could not be convicted because the mental state required for the crime was that of
recklessness or malice, and the defendant did not intentionally or recklessly endanger
others.
This case demonstrates that mens rea (in this case, recklessness or malice) is an
essential element for certain crimes, and without it, a conviction cannot be sustained.
There are several circumstances under which mens rea is concluded.
Foresight of consequences/Recklessness. This means that a person is deemed to

have acted with mens rea if he was aware that certain consequences would follow his
act. He must have appreciated that his conduct would produce negative / illegal
products. Case DPP V Smith (1961) AC 290 (1960)
Voluntariness of conduct. A person is said to have acted with Mens rea if his act is
voluntary. This is when a person applies his will to it. Therefore, the person is said to be
acting without mens rea if he acted through automation (acting without will)
Case: Bratty v Attorney General for Ireland (1963) AC 386
Intentions. This is a wish to bring about a particular result. If this result is forbidden by
the law then the offence is committed.
Negligence. This is where a person acts without realising that a particular result will
follow from what he is doing, but a reasonable person ought to realise such a result.
Although mens rea is a key element of criminal liability in many offenses, strict liability
offenses represent a significant exception to this rule. In strict liability offenses, mens
rea is not required for a conviction. The prosecution need only prove that the
defendant committed the actus reus regardless of their mental state or intention.
Offences of strict liability are those crimes which do not require mens rea with regard to
at least one or more elements of the actus reus. The defendant need not have intended
or known about that circumstance or consequence
According to Lord Edmund DAVIES in Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] 1 ALLER 898 at

920, an offense is regarded and properly regarded as one of strict liability if no mens rea
need be proved as to a single element in the actus reus. For example, an offense of
driving without a valid, driving license under sec 35 of the traffic and Road safety Act.
Another example is that of defilement, where the accused will be convicted of

defilement even though he reasonably but mistakenly believed that the victim was old
enough to consent to intercourse
In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong [1985] 2 All ER
503, the accused were involved in building works in Hong Kong. Part of a building they
were constructing fell down, and it was found that the collapse had occurred because
the builders had failed to follow the original plans exactly. The Hong Kong building
regulations prohibited deviating in any substantial way from such plans, and the
defendants were charged with breaching the regulations. On appeal they argued that
they were not liable because they did not know that the changes, they made were
substantial.
However the Privy Council held that the relevant regulations created offenses of strict
liability, and the convictions were upheld.
Lord Scarman laid down the criteria upon which a court should decide whether or not it
is appropriate to impose strict liability
1. There is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held
guilty of a criminal offence;
2. The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is "truly criminal" in

character
3. The presumption applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is
clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute;
4. The only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is
concerned with an issue of social concern, and public safety is such an issue
5. Even where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of mens rea
stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to
promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the
commission of the prohibited act."
"A person can’t be convicted of a criminal offense unless mens rea is provided" is only
partially true. While mens rea is a crucial component of many serious crimes and is
essential for ensuring that only those who are morally blameworthy are convicted, there
are significant exceptions where mens rea is not required.
Strict liability offenses, particularly in the context of regulatory or public welfare crimes,
do not require mens rea. In these cases, the mere commission of the actus reus is
enough for conviction, regardless of the defendant's mental state

Certified Loner's Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Certified Loner's Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Certified Loner's Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): refers to the mental state or the defendant’s awareness of the

act they are committing.

There are several circumstances under which mens rea is concluded.

Foresight of consequences/Recklessness. This means that a person is deemed to

According to Lord Edmund DAVIES in Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] 1 ALLER 898 at

Another example is that of defilement, where the accused will be convicted of

2. The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is "truly criminal" in

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.