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