1. Mens Rea - 1

2. General Mens rea = guilty mind Not the same as motive
2 types of mens rea:
Intention
Subjective recklessness
Depending on the crime, they will require D to have either/or one of the two

3. Direct Intent Intend to commit the criminal act
Mohan – direct intention is the decision to bring about the criminal consequence
D’s aim or purpose
Direct intent is relatively straightforward to see when it is there

4. Indirect or Oblique Intent
Indirect Intent = where D’s aim is something different to the actual consequence
Woollin – set out a test for the jury to consider where P is relying on indirect intent for mens rea:
Was the consequence a virtually certain result of the act
Did D know that it was virtually certain (subjective)
Matthews and Alleyne – confirmed the test in Woollin but this doesn’t prove intent – only something from which the jury can infer intent

5. Recklessness Lower level of mens rea than intent
Not for all offences – e.g. murder needs intent
Has to be Subjective recklessness – D must know there is a risk of the consequence but takes the risk deliberately
Cunningham – D broke a pre-gas meter to steal the money in it, with the result that the gas escaped into the next-door house. Neighbour became ill – D charged with administering a noxious substance. Court defined recklessness as:
D foresees that the particular kind of harm might be done
D has gone on to take the risk anyway
Do no need any ill will towards V
In the case of Cunningham he was found not-guilty as it could not be shown that he knew there was a risk of harming anyone

6. Steps when applying Mens Rea
Is there direct intent - the decision to bring about the criminal consequence
If not, is there indirect intent?:
Was the consequence a virtually certain result of the act?
Did D know that it was virtually certain? (subjective)
If not, is there subjective recklessness?
Does D foresee that the particular kind of harm might be done?
Has D gone on to take the risk anyway?