In Britain and other common law jurisdictions there is a saying that, “an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty.” In other words, simply doing something will not, in general, make a person a criminal unless their intent was to do, or cause, a criminal act. It is this intention which often establishes mens rea (literally the 'guilty mind') and turns the act into a crime.
Does Mens Rea Require Motive?
Although in the majority of cases, mens rea will require a person to intend to commit a certain action, there are exceptions to the rule. It is sometimes possible to commit a crime without intending to do so at all, or even while intending to commit a different crime. Under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, a person in England & Wales can be found guilty even if they were 'reckless' as to the effect of their actions. Someone is 'reckless' under English law if, following the ruling in the case of Metropolitan Police Commissioner v. Caldwell [1982], they are aware of the risks associated with an action but they choose to undertake that action nevertheless.
Desire as an Aspect of Mens Rea
Intention may be a secondary matter and still form part of the mens rea of a crime. For the crime of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, a person must desire a certain outcome different to that which they set out to achieve through the guilty act itself; what is known as 'ulterior intent'. In other words, the motive for the crime must separate to the intent to commit the crime itself. There are two forms of ulterior intent' possible in a section 18 offence: intent to cause grievous bodily harm; and intent to resist or prevent an arrest. The motive for such a crime could therefore be to escape from the police, but the mens rea of the crime is intending (or being simply reckless about) causing grievous bodily harm while wishing to evade arrest.
Mens Rea and Negligence
Some crimes require no motive or intent whatsoever, but mens rea will still exist. In the case of crimes of negligence, it is not necessary to demonstrate that a person intended or even thought about the consequences of their actions in order to secure a conviction. The crime on manslaughter, for example, may be committed through the unintentional killing of another person. In the case referred to in Ford v Primrose (1824), a husband was accused of killing his wife through administering the wrong medicine; the implication in the Ford case being that her death had been the result of a mistake on his part. In such cases, the mens rea for the crime is simply being negligent while committing the act in question.
Is Mens Rea Always Required?
There is one part of the criminal law where mens rea is not required at all. In strict liability crimes, the only requirement for conviction is that a person can be proved to have committed an act, or a failure to act; the motive or intention of the defendant being ignored unless it forms part of their defence. Road traffic crimes, such as speeding or failure to display a tax disc, rely heavily on strict liability laws to ensure swift application of justice.
What is the Effect of Mens Rea?
Mens rea is a necessary part of the majority of crimes and indeed the idea of 'no crime without a guilty mind' is one of the foundations of the common law legal system. It is the 'fault element' of the majority of crimes and its continued use ensures that no-one can be punished unless they are proved in court to be at fault for the crime in question.
The limiting of strict liability laws to situations where it is not only infeasible to require negligence or malice aforethought, or where it would often be impossible to establish such, helps strengthen the law by minimising the chance of convicting for a pure accident or unintended transgression and thus maintaining the principle of punishment only where guilt is truly evident.
 |
