Mens rea

Mens Rea is a term indicating the "Guilty mind" or mental state of the accused. In Criminal laws, it is the fault, or intent element in the crime. Not all crimes have a "mens rea" requirement, but most do.

Where there is a Mens rea requirement, both it and the Actus reus must be proven for a charge to be held.

Defining Mens Rea
Hume indicates that the badness from character which is revealed from acts.

It is not required to show "fault" through this, but some kind of positive mental awareness of the wrongdoing

It is not the same as motive. In Lord Advocates Reference (no. 2 1992) a would be armed robber who sought to escape an Assault charge claimed that he didn't meet the mens rea requirement of "evil intent" because he sought to brighten everyone's day through his "joke"; although the accused was let off in his case, the Lord Advocate Reference made it clear that the accused's motive was irrelevant to meeting the requirement of "evil intent".

Examples
"Murder is the Willful act of causing the destruction of life wither intended to kill, or displaying such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of circumstances."

- Mcdonald

In this example, the mens rea required to be shown is the "Willful act...intended to kill" or "wilful act...displaying such wicked recklessness depraved enough to be regardless of circumstances".

Intention
Intention has no special legal meaning, "intention" is said to mean just its "ordinary" meaning.

There is some distinction between rimes that intend to perform an act (such as "taking") and those that intend to bring a result (Willful fire raising) where the damage done must be intended.

In HM v Purcell, during a high speed chase the accused hit and killed a child. The court found for a charge of murder (based on "Wicked Recklessness") although there dudnt have to be intention to kill, there did have to be intent to injure.

Knowledge
Eg - Knowlingly buying stolen property

Knowledge also includes "Willfull blindness" - in Latta v Herron the accused purchased stolen items in suspicious circumstances, and chose not to enquire as to their origin. The court ruled he should reasonably have been suspicious of their origin, and thus was wilfully blind as to their origin.

Reckless
Scotland uses an objective Reckless test (as opposed to other jurisdictions, such as England, who use a subjective test). It is considered synonymous with "utter disregard" (Quinn v Cunningham), unless the accused is incapable Elliot v C (1983).

Proving Mens Rea
Mens Rea is a fact to be proven to a Jury. It is often proven through a confession. Where this is not possible it is established by looking at the circumstances before and after the act, but the mens rea must be shown to be concurrent with the actus reus.

Acts before the crime are usually more relevant than acts afterwards to show intention. In Halliday v HM Advocate the accused celebrated and cleaned up after a crime, this was held only to be admissible where it spoke to the state of mind at the time of the crime.