The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

The second classification of mens rea is recklessness i.e. where a defendant commits an act without giving further thought to his or her actions. The law on recklessness is divided into the law prior to R v Caldwell (1982) and the law post R v Caldwell (1982). Prior to Caldwell the only type of recklessness that existed was subjective recklessness as per the decision in R v Cunningham (195I). In Cunningham, the appellant ripped a gas meter from a wall in an attempt to steal money that was deposited in a coin box attached to the meter and as a result gas seeped through fissures in the wall and escaped to the neighboring property where Mrs. Wade (Sarah) was sleeping. “The appellant was convicted upon an indictment framed under s 23 of the Offences against the person Act (1861) * which charged that he unlawfully and maliciously caused to be taken by Sarah Wade a certain noxious thing, namely, coal gas, so as thereby to endanger the life of the said Sarah Wade” In any statut

Mens Rea is divided into various classes. The first type of Mens Rea and the easiest to understand or comprehend is intent. Intention is affirmed when the defendant wants something to happen as a result of his or her actions. Intention itself can be divided into two categories - direct and oblique intent. Direct intent is relatively straightforward and easy enough to discern or establish. For example the defendant wants to kill a person and in furtherance of his or her thought, he or she goes to a shop and purchases a knife and having bought the knife, he or she then stabs his or her victim with the knife, knowing that his or her actions will result in the death of the victim. Similarly the defendant goes to a gunsmith to purchase a gun. He or she acquires the gun and the bullets and at a chosen time and at an appointed location points the gun at the victim and pulls the trigger, once again with the knowledge that his or her actions will result in the death of the victim.

It is a long established principle of criminal law that no crime can be committed without an evil mind and therefore the mental element or the state of the mind, at the time the crime was committed, becomes crucial when determining if an offender is guilty or otherwise. This mental element is commonly known as Mens Rea and it is derived from the Latin phrase “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which simply means that the act is not culpable (deserving blame) unless the mind is guilty. There are however certain exceptions for example when a crime occurs as a result of negligence. Criminal law as we know it came into existence as a result of actions committed as acts of vengeance or it is the cumulative result of acts committed as retaliatory actions for injuries, physical or otherwise, suffered or incurred, because of long standing enmities or a desire to seek revenge or to acquire some form of satisfaction or gratification for loss that has resulted from the action

Automatism even if it is self-induced can be a defense to basic intent crimes i.e. crimes where the mens rea that is required to secure a conviction is either negligence or recklessness). In R v Bailey (1983) the defendant a diabetic went over to the house of his ex-lover’s new partner (victim), clearly upset over the fact that his ex-girlfriend had moved on. The victim invited the defendant in to discuss the matter, and the defendant who had taken his insulin but had not consumed any food, prior to the visit, felt that he was going into hypoglycemic, a state caused by a lack of glucose in the body and asked the victim for a glass of sugared water and upon drinking the water, the defendant was about to leave. As he was about to step out, he dropped his glove, and the victim bent over to pick it up and while he was doing so, the defendant hit him over the head with an iron bar. The defendant was charged under s.18 of the Offences Against Person Act (1861) and the defendant c

With regards to sugar levels in the body, it can be divided into two categories. They are as follows: - 1) Hypoglycemia (a lack of glucose in the body). Hypoglycemia is caused by external factors i.e. the defendant not doing something he should be doing or doing something that he shouldn’t be doing. In such instances, depending on the facts, the defense can raise the defense of automatism and 2) Hyperglycemia (excess sugar in the body). Hyperglycemia is a condition that occurs naturally and it is caused by internal factors. In such instances, the defense can raise the defense of insanity In R v Quick (1973) the defendant a male nurse who was a diabetic had taken insulin without consuming any food, and in addition to that had consumed alcohol which aggravated the situation (whisky and rum). He assaulted a patient who was a paraplegic and inflicted injuries that included a broken nose and a black eye. The defendant was charged under s.47 of the Offences Against Pe

In 1964 parliament passed the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 which takes into account the defendant’s fitness to plead with regards to defendants who suffer from a disability. S. 4 of the act reads as follows: - Finding of unfitness to plead: - (1) This section applies where on the trial of a person the question arises (at the instance of the defense or otherwise) whether the accused is under a disability, that is to say, under any disability such that apart from this Act it would constitute a bar to his being tried. (2) If, having regard to the nature of the supposed disability, the court are of opinion that it is expedient to do so and in the interests of the accused, they may postpone consideration of the question of fitness to be tried until any time up to the opening of the case for the defense. (3) If, before the question of fitness to be tried falls to be determined, the jury return a verdict of acquittal on the count or each of the counts on which th

A physical disease of the mind or damage to the brain will, if the circumstances permit, allow the defendant to raise the defense of insanity, and the M’Naghten rule can be extended to cover these types of situations. In R v Kemp (1957) the defendant who was suffering from arteriosclerosis (a thickening or hardening of the arteries normally caused by old age) assaulted his wife with a hammer and the defendant was charged under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) to his wife. At the trial the defendant raised the defense of automatism but the trial judge directed the jury on insanity. It was held that in order to determine if the defense (insanity) would avail itself to the defendant the court had to look into whether the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding are impaired or absent and the physical state or condition of the mind is irrelevant. If the defendant was not able to comprehend or understand th

With regards to the defense of insanity, a wrongful act is an act that is defined as an act that is legally wrong and not morally wrong i.e. it must be an act that is in breach of either common law or statutory law and as long as the defendant can appreciate or understand that his actions are legally wrong than the defense of insanity would not be  made available to him. The defense of insanity only comes into play when the defendant is not capable of understanding the nature of his or her act or is not able to comprehend the seriousness of the offence. In R v Windle (1952) the defendant administered an aspirin overdose to his suicidal wife, who was terminally ill. He was without doubt suffering from a mental condition but during his arrest, he said to the arresting officers “I suppose that they will hang me for this” which implied that the defendant knew that his act was legally wrong, and he was able to understand the seriousness of his act. He was tried and convicted, an

At the start of the trial, when the defendant is charged, he is charged on the presumption that he is sane and it is up to the defense to rebut the presumption of sanity i.e. to prove that the defendant is not sane. In M'Naghten (1843) the defendant attempted to kill the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, and instead shot and killed his secretary Edward Drummond. At the time of the killing the defendant was suffering from insane delusions i.e. a false conception of reality. It was held that in all instances the jury is to be told that the defendant is presumed to be sane at the time of the crime and this presumption is valid until the defense can prove otherwise and in order for the defense of insanity to be successful it must be clearly proved by way of evidence that the defendant was laboring under such defect of reason due to a disease of the mind that he or she was unable to know the nature and quality of the act. In 1883 the Trial of Lunatics Act was passed and as

In R v Pritchard (1836) the defendant was deaf and mute, and it was decided that before the court or a jury can reach a verdict three factors had to be taken into account: - 1.      Whether the defendant is mute of malice 2.      Whether the defendant can plead 3.      Whether the defendant understands or comprehends the charges against him or her – Alderson B. If the jury find that they could not communicate with the defendant or the defendant could not understand the charges against him or her than the jury should find the defendant unfit to plead. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward

The defense of insanity is a defense that is available to all crimes. When the judge or the jury finds that the defendant falls under the scope of the defense, the verdict that is to be returned is the verdict of not guilty by virtue of insanity. Insanity differs from diminished responsibility (which is also a defense on a charge of murder or intending to cause GBH (grievous bodily harm)) in that insanity is caused by inherent factors and diminished responsibility is cause by external, often extenuating circumstances, for example repeated abuse or aggravating someone who is intolerant of the victim’s actions. The latter is more in line with the defense of automatism though automatism is usually the result of the excessive consumption of alcohol or the excessive taking of drugs, or a failure to do something, that the defendant who is under medication should do, for example taking insulin without eating any food and thus going into hypoglycemia. All three defenses, while t

Intoxication need not be raised if the defendant is suffering from a mental impairment that falls under S. 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. The fact that the defendant is suffering from a recognized mental ailment is sufficient to reduce a charge of murder to that of manslaughter S. 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 reads as follows: - Persons suffering from diminished responsibility.  (1) A person (“D”) who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which— (a) arose from a recognized medical condition, (b) substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and (c) provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. In R v Hendy (2006) the accused a 16-year-old was suffering from some sort of mental impairment as a result of a head injury that he sustained as a child. He was callous and

The rule in R v O’Grady (1987) with regards to a mistake of facts induced by self-intoxication was reaffirmed in the 2005 case of R v Hatton, in that, a defendant cannot validly raise the defense of self-defense when he caused the death of another under a mistaken belief that was precipitated by the excessive consumption of alcohol or the taking of drugs. In R v Hatton (2005) the defendant and the victim met at a pub. The victim was a manic depressive and was prescribed lithium to keep his illness under control. On the day in question the defendant had not taken his lithium and the alcohol in is blood was above twice the legal limit. The defendant and the victim met in a pub. They did not know each other prior to that and on the day, the victim was acting strangely and passed himself off as a former member of the SAS and was exhibiting his martial arts skills. Both men had been drinking heavily and left together in the defendant’s car. The defendant drove the victim to his h

In instances of horseplay, the test that is to be applied, in order to decide if the defendant is guilty or otherwise, is the subjective test i.e. the question that is to be asked is whether the defendant had intended to cause the victim the harm that had resulted and not if a reasonable man can foresee that some harm would result from the defendant’s actions. In most instances in order to obtain a conviction the prosecution must establish that the defendant’s actions were beyond what could be construed as mere horseplay. In Richardson and Irwin (1999) two students lifted another over a balcony, after a bout of evening drinking and dropped him some twelve feet causing him serious injuries. The court decided that the defendants were not guilty. Clearly the boys were fooling around, and they had no intention of causing any form or type of injury to their friend. In such instances the question that is to be asked is whether the boys intended to cause the defendant the harm tha

As far as intent in criminal law is concerned, it does not matter if the defendant committed the act when he was drunk and as long as the prosecution can prove that the intent was always there, the defendant can be found guilty. Intent remains intent and if the prosecution can establish that the intention was there when the defendant was sober than the jury can convict. The fact that drugs or alcohol take away the defendant’s inhibitions does not negate or diminish intent and in some instances it does not even mitigate the crime or the offence for the reason that the intent was always there and the excessive drinking or the drugs merely made it easier for the defendant to carry out his or her intentions. In R v Kingston (1995), the defendant was a homosexual with pedophiliac predilections and was drugged by a friend, who was employed by another party to gain some leverage that they could use to settle a business dispute with the defendant. While he was intoxicated he was en

With regards to specific intent crimes, a charge of murder may be reduced to a charge of manslaughter, in instances of self-induced intoxication because the defendant lacked the mens rea for a conviction of murder i.e. intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm and may have made a mistake as to the amount of force that was exerted. In R v O’Connor (1991) the defendant who was drunk at the time killed a man in a fight in a pub and according to the defendant he was acting in self-defense. He was convicted of murder and he appealed his conviction. On appeal the appellant’s conviction of murder was reduced to that of manslaughter because the appellant did not have the mens rea required for murder see also R v O’Grady (1987). Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward

With regards to spiking or lacing another person’s drink, in order to secure a conviction, the prosecution will need to establish intention (mens rea) and nothing less will suffice i.e. it is a specific intent crime (strict liability offence) as opposed to a basic intent crime where the mens rea required to secure a conviction is either negligence or recklessness. In Blakely and Sutton v DPP (1991) the victim was having an affair with the principle defendant and after having a couple of drinks with her he decided to go home to his wife. In order to stop the defendant from going home, the principle defendant and her friend, spiked the victim’s drink (tonic water) with alcohol but before either of them could stop him, the victim got into his car and drove off. He was subsequently stopped by the police and failed a breathalyzer test. However, he was absolved of all charges when it was discovered that his drink was spiked, and the defendants were charged instead and were convicted