Introduction

In criminal law, mens rea is the defendant’s state of mind. Mens rea is an important requirement in most crimes. However in the strict liability offence, mens rea is not required. Actus reus is suffice enough. There are three main levels of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence

Intention

In mens rea, intention requires the highest degree of fault. Generally, a person who has the intention to commit a crime is said to be more culpable than those who acts recklessly. It differs from desire or motive (R v Moloney [1985]. When a person kills a loved one dying from a terminal illness because they want to relieve them from the pain and suffering, this may seem morally an act of good motives, however this does not exclude them from having the intention to kill. Intention is divided into two parts; direct intent and oblique intent.

Direct Intent

When it comes to direct intent, it is quite straightforward in majority cases. Direct intent exists where one act a conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. For example; if D has the intention to kill his wife. For this to happen, he may pull a knife out, sharpen it and stab her result in killing her. By his conduct, the desired result is achieved.

Oblique intent:

For Oblique, intent, the situation is more complex. It exist when the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, even knowing the consequences of his actions will about another result. For example; the defendant has the intention to kill his wife. He knows that she will be travelling somewhere on a plane and he places a bomb in the particular plane she is boarding. By placing a bomb on the plane, he knows by his actions, it will result in killing the other passengers as well as the aeroplane crew even though his intention is to only kill his wife. The defendant in this situation is no less culpable in killing the passenger and the crew than killing his wife because he knows for fact that his action will result in death.

.

Throughout the years, the courts have struggled on finding the most appropriate test to apply in oblique intent cases. These are among those questions that the courts have asked over and over when reviewing the oblique intent test:

1. Should the test be subjective or objective?

2. What degree of probability is required before it can be said that the defendant intended the result?

3. Whether the degree of probability should be equal to intention or whether it is evidence of intention from which the jury may infer intention