Mens rea

Mens rea, the 'fault element' of a crime, attempts to ensure that only those
who are morally culpable will be punished by the criminal courts.

In Britain and other common law jurisdictions there is a saying that, actus
non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea “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.

Mens rea means a mental state, in which a person deliberately

violates a law. Thus mens rea means intention to do the
prohibited act

These are known as mental elements in criminal liability. Therefore an act in

order to be a crime must be committed with a guilty mind,

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, is a well know principle of natural
justice meaning no person could be punished in a proceeding of criminal
nature unless it can be shown that he had a guilty mind.

In justice concept, actus Reus represents the physical aspect of crime and
mens rea the mental aspect, which must be criminal and co-operate with the
former. Actus reus has been defined as such result of human conduct as the
law seeks to prevent. Mens rea which is a technical term generally taken to
mean some blameworthy mental condition or mind at fault, covers a wide
range of mental states and conditions the existence of which would give a
criminal hue to actus reus. No act is per se criminal; it becomes criminal
only when the actor does it with guilty mind.

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.

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.

Exceptions to mens rea.

Crime = Voluntary + foresight of the consequences-
Act done under compulsion.
If the consequence not looked for the act may be voluntary but not
intentional. For any criminal liability there must be a voluntary act, this
preposition drive from the maxim-
Actus me invite factus non est mens actus which means and act done by me
against my will is not my act. This maxim support the doctrine of Mens
Rea- for no person can be held liable for an act done under fear or
compulsion.
For example:
A holds B and compels him at gun point to open the lock of C's house. Here
B's act not a willed or intentional act.
The basic requirement of the principle of Mens Rea is that accused must
have been aware of all those elements in his act which make it the crime
with which he charged.

Commission of Offence
Offence against state, police, nuisance, and stick liability etc mens rea is not
requiring.

Conclusion: in modern statutory offenses the maxim has no longer

applicable and the statutes are to be regarded as themselves prescribing the
mental element which is pre-requisite to a conviction. So mens rea is an
essential element of crime, in every penal statue unless the same either
expressly or by necessary implication is ruled out by the statues.

Intention + Act + Result = Crime

Crime = Vulnerary + foresight of the consequences.

2. Mens Rea- Mental element in crime. Intention. mens rea means a

mental state, in which a person deliberately violates a law. Thus mens rea
means intention to do the prohibited act. In Allrd v. Selfridge, it was held,.

Intention to do an act which is made penal by statute or by common law.

DESIRE IS CONSTRUCTED TO WILL AND THIS WILL FORMS

MOTIVE AND THIS MOTIVE FORMS INTENTION AND
INTENTION FORMS ATTEMPT AND ATTAMPTS FORM
COMMISION OF OFFENCE.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea '-’

An act does not make a person legally liable unless the mind is legally
blameworthy'.
Offence against state, police, nuisance, and stick liability etc mens rea is not
require.

Intention to Kill (intention to caused death). Is a basic rule. Intention is to

bring about a desired act. Presumption of Intention- Natural and
probable consequences should be presumed.
Consent- Intention to have sexual pleasure from a person without her
consent.
Knowledge – Direct appeal to your senses. Here the probability is very high
(against to commit the act against Law).Exp to purchase a stolen good.
Theft-To taking possession without the consent of the owner.