Abstract
The majority of criminal offences require, in addition to the actus reus, a specific state of mind on the part of the accused, usually referred to as the mens rea. Many less serious crimes require no mens rea, but simply proof that the defendant caused the prohibited harm. These are known as strict liability crimes and will be discussed separately in Chapter 6. They tend to be crimes that carry lower sentences and focus on discouraging a particular harm rather than imposing moral blame. Most serious crimes require proof of some a guilty state of mind, for example that the defendant intended or foresaw a particular result. The draft Criminal Code Bill uses the ‘fault element’ rather than mens rea and states:
‘fault element; means an element of an offence consisting:
- (a)
of a state of mind with which a person acts; or
- (b)
of a failure to comply with a standard of conduct; or
- (c)
partly of such a state of mind and partly of such a failure’ (clause 6).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography and Further Reading
Birch: The Foresight Saga: The Biggest Mistake of All?, [1988] Criminal Law Review, 4.
Duff: The Obscure Intentions of the House of Lords, [1986] Criminal Law Review, 771.
Gardner: Recklessness Redefined, (1993) 109 Law Quarterly Review, 21.
Gardner: The Importance of Majewski, (1994) 14 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26.
Hart: Punishment and Responsibility (1968, Oxford University Press).
Horder: Intention in the Criminal Law A Rejoinder, (1995) Modern Law Review, 678.
Kenny: Outlines of Criminal Law (16th edition, 1952, Cambridge University Press) at 186.
Lacey: A Clear Concept of Intention: Elusive or Illusory?, (1993) 56 Modern Law Review, 621.
Law Commission No. 89: Report on the Mental Element in Crime (1978).
Leigh: Recklessness after Reid, (1993) 56 Modern Law Review, 208.
Patient: Transferred Malice A Misleading Misnomer, (1990) Journal of Criminal Law, 116.
Simester: Moral Certainty and the Boundaries of Intention, (1996) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 445.
Smith: Comment on Hancock and Shankland, [1986] Criminal Law Review, 400.
Sullivan: Cause and the Contemporaneity of Actus Reus and Mens Rea, (1993) Cambridge Law Journal, 487.
Wells: The Mental Element in Crime 1974-83: Lighthouse Some Good, [1984] Criminal Law Review, 652.
Williams. Recklessness Redefined, [1981] Cambridge Law Journal, 252.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1998 Marise Cremona and Jonathan Herring
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Herring, J., Cremona, M. (1998). The Mental Element. In: Criminal Law. Macmillan Law Masters. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13561-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13561-5_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-62075-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-13561-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)