Essay about Mens Rea and Recklessness

Submitted By natashalauren6
Words: 1598
Pages: 7
Open Document
Recklessness is a problematic area of the law as there is no strict definition of what constitutes it. Therefore, judges have to interpret what is meant by recklessness through case law. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 had replaced the Malicious Damage Act 1861, where mens rea had been defined as ‘maliciously’.1 It replaced the term ‘maliciousness’ with ‘recklessness’ but recklessness was not defined in the new Act. Recklessness in the legal sense is concerned with conscious taking of an unjustified risk of harm.2 Between 1982 and 2003, recklessness was described both subjectively (Cunningham3 recklessness) and objectively (Caldwell4 recklessness), but each applied to different offences. However, the House of Lords in RvG5 put the subjective-objective controversy to end.
The Cunningham recklessness attempts to look into the defendant’s mind and asks whether he realised that there was a risk but carried on regardless6. Foresight is an essential element of subjective recklessness. Following Cunningham, the courts decided that a defendant who deliberately closes his mind to risk could be considered subjectively reckless.7 Caldwell created a new and wider test. It proposes that recklessness is a departure from the standard of conduct of the prudent person8. The decision was followed in subsequent case decisions.9 Caldwell posed problems for the unknowledgeable and those whose inadvertence results from incapacities, as it is harsh to punish them10. Although the defendant completely unaware any risk created, he can be objectively reckless. This caused injustice and gave rise to a great deal of criticism. Perhaps for the injustice caused by Caldwell, Caldwell only limited to offences such as criminal damage and dangerous driving. In other areas of criminal law, recklessness continued to apply pre-Caldwell meaning.11 The final blow to Caldwell recklessness was dealt in RvG. The House of Lords overturned Caldwell. The Lords relied on ‘compelling legal considerations’, namely legislative intent and fairness and did not refer to similar precedents. In RvG, a subjective test was applied. Lord Bingham gave the leading judgment and the other judges consented with Lord Bingham’s decision and reasoning for coming to that decision.
Of the four reasons provided by Lord Bingham to overrule Caldwell, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, constituted the first ground.12 Lord Bingham stated that it is a salutary principle of the law that it had to be proven that the defendant had the necessary mens rea to commit the crime. No one should be convicted of a serious crime without culpability. Lord Bingham’s understanding of this principle is built upon the strict subjectivist view of mens rea in associating culpability. According to his view, mens rea is limited to a subjective condition found in a cognitive state.13 Besides, inadvertent wrongdoer has to be distinguished from the advertent wrongdoer in terms of liability.14 Professor Kenny stated that a more harsh punishment is needed to deter a person from taking a conduct that he knows carries a risk than is needed for a less threatening inadvertent wrongdoer.15 There is also a moral distinction between the individual who knowingly takes a risk and the individual who fails to consider a risk. Brady stated that it is justified to punish the former more severely.16 ‘Knowing disregard’ of a known and unacceptable risk or a deliberate closing of the mind to such risk are culpable. Lord Bingham approved that a man cannot close his mind to risk unless he first realises that there is a risk, in which case he is subjectively reckless as had already been decided in Parker17.
The second argument used by Lord Bingham was that the Caldwell test was unfair and he added that RvG was an obvious example. Lord Bingham cited that both the judge and the jury felt uneasy about convicting the boys.18 Besides, in Elliot19, it offended the jury’s sense of fairness. Besides, Caldwell had largely overlapped with
Show More

Related Documents: Essay about Mens Rea and Recklessness

The Elements Of Criminal Law Essay

state of being that is forbidden by the Criminal Code.  If you with another person then hit that person, you have committed assault.  The Criminal Code defines the wrongful act clearly and precisely so we know exactly what the law prohibits. Mens rea Mens rea: A deliberate intention to commit a wrongful act, with reckless disregard for the consequences.  The term implies moral guilt—that the accused person deliberately did something he or she knew to be wrong, with reckless disregard for the consequences…

Words 1038 - Pages 5

Essay on Unit 3

person Summary of non-fatal offences:- |Crime |Actus Reus |Mens Rea |Cases | |Assault |Causing the victim to fear |Intention or subjective |Logdon v DPP | | |immediate, unlawful personal |recklessness. |R v Ireland | | |violence.…

Words 3486 - Pages 14

The Law of Intention, Following the Cases of Woollin [1999] 1 Ac 82 and Matthews [2003] 3 Cr App R 30, Is Now Satisfactorily Defined in the Criminal Law. Essay

and Matthews [2003] 3 Cr App R 30, is now satisfactorily defined in the criminal law. Intention, normally means desire to aim at something. However, in criminal law, mens rea known as ‘guilty mine’, it requires two distinguishable intentions which are direct intention as well as oblique intention, and apart from, also recklessness. Direct intention means the consequences of the action is desired specifically, just like murder. Defendant is purposed to achieve the death or the grievous bodily harm…

Words 1235 - Pages 5

Halliday V Canes Law

states “murder is constituted by any wilful act causing the destruction of life, whether intended to kill, or displaying such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of consequences”.1 Two kinds of mens rea are sufficient for murder: intention to kill and wicked recklessness. It is widely accepted that for wicked recklessness to be fulfilled there must be intention to cause injury as well as a wicked disregard of or indifference to possible fatal consequences…

Words 2242 - Pages 9

Elements of a Crime Essay

being stung by a swarm of bees. Such actions would not amount to actus reus and therefore the defendant could not be guilty. Mens Rea The Mens Rea of a crime is the mental element, this consists of intention or recklessness or an act. For example taking an unjustified risk or gross negligence that results in an injury or death of a victim will make part of the Mens Rea. R v Adamako - The defendant was an anaesthetist that failed to observe that during an operation that the tube inserted in the…

Words 842 - Pages 4

Essay about Case Law

foresight and virtual certainty of death and serious injury Subjective Recklessness Cunningham – prosecution must prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the particular kind of harm might result and went on to take the risk of it. Objective recklessness Caldwell – a person was reckless for failing to consider a risk that would have been obvious to a reasonable person. Elliot – where Caldwell recklessness sufficed, it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused…

Words 550 - Pages 3

The Elements of Criminal Liability Essay

The Elements of Criminal Liability ACTUS REUS & MENS REA "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", or "an act does not make a man guilty unless his mind be also guilty (Burgess, 2004, p.8)." In criminal law, for an individual to commit a crime, there must be present two elements. They are: • Actus Reus (meaning guilty act – or omission); and • Mens Rea (meaning guilty mind). Actus Reus is the guilty act or omission in the commissioning of a crime. In short, it is what the offender does…

Words 2392 - Pages 10

Oapa: Criminal Law and reasonably Prudent Parent Essay

under a duty to act, the jury will most likely find that Dot’s conduct has fallen below the standard of the reasonably prudent parent. Effectively, Dot has taken a significant risk by not being able to decipher the photocopy which demonstrates recklessness. Dot’s cumulative actions have culminated in the children’s deaths, and the nature of these omissions becomes more serious when one considers that Dot could have cancelled the expedition upon realising that the leaflet was useless. Common…

Words 2189 - Pages 9

Legal Studies Essay

therefore the state) and Jones being the accused. The elements of crime: actus reus and mens rea The elements of a crime are acts or omissions that mostly involve crimes against a person. E.g. manslaughter. Actus Reus and mens rea are two fundamental elements applicable to most offences. Actus Reus is that the Accused person actually committed the crime or causation. Mens rea is that the accused person sufficiently…

Words 6128 - Pages 25

Scots Criminal Law

itself causation of a particular event is not sufficient enough to form legal liability meaning it has to be combined with both mens rea and actus reus to prove criminal responsibility per result crime. In criminal liability causation is separated into two parts; factual and legal causation. The fatal cause is defined by the combination of both the actus reus and mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. It is the beginning point for identifying the link of causation and requires the “But For”…

Words 1173 - Pages 5