MEN'S REA

Men's rea in homicide, theft and burglary

Men's rea in homicide, theft and burglary

The law of England and Wales has always discarded the relevance of motive in determining the liability of a defendant. This dismissal has been seen and argued to be unequivocal. All the prosecution must show is which the defendant possessed the specified mental state or mens rea towards the required actus reus. This approach, however, as the title suggests, fails to take account of the way which the elements of motive and intention and so intrinsically linked as to make a dismissal of motive not only futile but almost naive. As the title suggests, motive drives intention. Therefore intention is a manifestation of motive. Therefore it is one thing to argue which what must be proven to establish liability is intention as opposed to motive, and another thing altogether to argue which motive, no matter how creditable, is irrelevant.

However, despite its unequivocal dismissal of the relevance of motive towards liability, takes account and even integrates the element of motive into the definition of many offences.

Men's rea (aka "guilty mind") for murder includes intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm where there is a high probability of resulting in death, while the attempted murder depends on intent to kill, and an overt act towards the killing. The attempted murder is only planning a murder and acts taken to him, not the actual killing, which is murder. This makes the offense difficult to prove and is more common for a lesser charge is preferred under the Offences against the person Act 1861. The prosecution had many opportunities to add other accounts before trial but failed to act. Hearing the case, the judge expressed his opinion which the jury could consider attempted grievous bodily harm (GBH) under s18 OAP and Morrison because he was convicted of attempted GBH. The CA confirmed which attempted GBH is a valid alternative to attempted murder because there can be no intention of killing someone without intending also to cause GBH.

Proof of men's rea

There must be more than merely preparatory acts, even if the defendant can threaten death, this may not provide convincing evidence of an intention to kill unless the words are accompanied by the relevant action, e.g. finding and picking up a weapon, and making serious use of it, or making a serious and sustained physical attack without a weapon.

The attempted murder requires evidence of an intention to kill, unlike murder, which requires intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The courts pay particular attention to the accounts of attempted murder and will be highly justifiable criticism of any account unless there is clear evidence of an intention to kill. The attempted murder is a specific intent offense.

When considering the option of charging, prosecutors should consider what alternative verdicts may be open to a jury on an allegation of attempted murder. When referring to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 when defining the actus reus and mens rea of the ...