Mens rea is the part of an offence relating to the defendant’s blameworthy state of mind when committing the actus reus. Basically, it’s about intention. For example, the mens rea of murder is intending either to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to any person.
The concept of mens rea is from a Latin word, guilty mind”, allows the criminal justice system to distinguish someone who set out with the intention of committing a crime from someone who did not mean to commit a crime. Under common law, a person cannot be truly guilty of a crime unless he or she consciously commits a dangerous or illegal act.
The highest level of mens rea is intention. This is also referred to as specific intention. The other types of mens rea are recklessness and negligence.
Intention requires the highest degree of fault of all the levels of mens rea. A person who intends to commit a crime, can generally be said to be more culpable than one who acts recklessly. Intention differs from motive or desire (Per Lord Bridge R v Moloney AC 905 Case summary).
Under the traditional common law, the guilt or innocence of a person relied upon whether he had committed the crime (actus reus), and whether he intended to commit the crime (mens rea).
Mens Rea is an enormous aspect of criminal law. Is the mental element that beseeched by the definition of a circumstantial crime and it encompass three degrees: intention, recklessness and negligence.
The literal meaning of mens rea, 'a guilty mind' is also somewhat misleading.
Mens rea means guilty mind, but it is more about fault than guilt.
The mens rea is specific intention to destroy or damage the property which will be evident by the defendants aim. Mens rea can also be formed due to recklessness however in the case of Mick this is not a factor that needs to be considered.
There is no statutory definition for intention, generally in defined by mens rea and case law.
Essay question. Read these two answers and assess what mark you think they should get and why, entering it into the box.. Over the years, the courts have found it difficult to define mens rea elements such as intention and recklessness, despite these being everyday words. Critically evaluate the approach the courts have taken to the meaning.
I. Introduction This article argues for the uniform definition of mens rea terms, such as recklessness and intention, in English criminal law. 1 It will be demonstrated in section II that the English courts have defined these terms in various ways in different circumstances. Section III will then consider a defence of this approach offered by Victor Tadros.
The term of 'mens rea' refers to 'the mental element' but it is known as 'guilty mind'. The prosecution needs to prove whether the defendant is guilty in relation to each element of actus reus. Some crimes can be committed with different types of mens rea, for example, intention, recklessness and negligence.
To be guilty of a crime, it is usually expected that the defendant has the necessary mens rea or guilty mind, (subject to cases of strict liability.). The level of mens rea required varies for different crimes, to find the mens rea one must look at the specific definition of a crime.
Throughout the essay it will be considered whether a statutory definition would be useful in trying to pin down the broad concept of intention, the confusion with law on intention, and whether the flexibility offered by a non-statutory definition is more desirable, by considering mens rea and case law.A Consistent Approach to Assessing Mens Rea in the Criminal Law of England and Wales By Furey, JR 2010 Submitted by Jason Richard Furey, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law, August 2010. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material.Mens rea Essays. Filter. Sort by. 14 essay samples is found. Sort by. Relevance; Newest; Download (max to min) Download (min to max) Actus Reus in Recklessness and Common Assault Law Essay. Maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means that the guilty act on its own will not make a person criminally liable unless it was done with a.