Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mens Rea.

  • 17-10-2014 03:53PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,346
    ✭✭✭


    In Irish criminal law can the mens rea element be established by recklessness ?

    Is there case law ?


Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 Little CuChulainn
    ✭✭✭


    A lot of laws actually include recklessness in the definition. What kind of crime are we talking about?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,346 NUTLEY BOY
    ✭✭✭


    A lot of laws actually include recklessness in the definition. What kind of crime are we talking about?

    Murder.


  • Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Tom Young
    Mod ✭✭✭✭


    I've dealt with this in reply to your other thread. The answer is generally yes. The permutations are various though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 conorh91
    ✭✭✭


    Recklessness is a type of mens rea.

    It ranks below 'pure' or 'oblique' intention, and above negligence in order of seriousness.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 Zambia
    ✭✭✭


    NUTLEY BOY wrote: »
    Murder.
    o

    I don't believe you can recklessly murder someone one.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 NoQuarter
    ✭✭✭


    You can be SO reckless that it practically amounts to intent and is therefore considered murder.

    For example, ringing a doorbell and pointing a gun to the door, waiting 30 seconds and firing a bullet through the door. You could easily argue no intent to actually kill someone, but it's such a ridiculously reckless thing to do, a jury would be entitled to infer intent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 FreudianSlippers
    ✭✭✭✭


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    You can be SO reckless that it practically amounts to intent and is therefore considered murder.

    For example, ringing a doorbell and pointing a gun to the door, waiting 30 seconds and firing a bullet through the door. You could easily argue no intent to actually kill someone, but it's such a ridiculously reckless thing to do, a jury would be entitled to infer intent.

    That's a bit different; really that is the jury believing that you had the intent to kill or seriously injure the person, not that you were reckless. As was pointed out above, only legislation that includes recklessness specifically as a mens rea can be considered but murder isn't one


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 NoQuarter
    ✭✭✭


    That's a bit different; really that is the jury believing that you had the intent to kill or seriously injure the person, not that you were reckless. As was pointed out above, only legislation that includes recklessness specifically as a mens rea can be considered but murder isn't one

    I understand but there's nothing to stop the DPP charging someone with murder if essentially what they have done is reckless. There's a line to be drawn and its a blurry one. My understanding of mens rea in general is that it's a scale of recklessness and the higher you go on that scale the closer to intent you come, right up until the point where the action was so reckless, it has to be considered intent. So in that regard, it can be used for murder, because what the argument would be is that it was so so reckless that it IS intent. Therefore would satisfy the mens rea for murder. See my example above.


    Edit: on a re-read of what the OP is looking for I agree with you. You technically cant murder someone is you were categorically "reckless" only. The charge would be bumped down to negligent manslaughter most likely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 conorh91
    ✭✭✭


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    You can be SO reckless that it practically amounts to intent and is therefore considered murder.

    For example, ringing a doorbell and pointing a gun to the door, waiting 30 seconds and firing a bullet through the door. You could easily argue no intent to actually kill someone, but it's such a ridiculously reckless thing to do, a jury would be entitled to infer intent.
    I thought, as I read that, you were going to describe the English case of Hyam, where Mrs Hyam was jealous of a woman called Mrs Boothe, and in the middle of the night, set fire to Mrs. Boothe's door through the letterbox.

    Mrs Booth escaped, but her children both died. Hyam claimed she only wanted to give Mrs Boothe a fright, and bore no intention to harm her or the children. The jury inferred intent, and returned a finding or murder, but it's not easy to see how.

    I'm not sure if there have been any Irish cases on indirect intention, I can't remember any.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 Carawaystick
    ✭✭✭


    There was the case of the cop burnt to death in Bray station
    Lad was charged with capital murder and arson
    Eventually acquitted of the c murder,maybe on retrial, or after a long deliberation

    From the reports on drive time radio, there was no intent to kill anyone other than the defendant. But those aren't the most reliable


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 MarkAnthony
    ✭✭✭


    A 2008 LRC Report suggested adding recklessness in certain situations, I'm not doing all of the OP's homework for him though (chiefly because I didn't do my own)!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 Labarbapostiza
    ✭✭✭


    Zambia wrote: »
    o

    I don't believe you can recklessly murder someone one.

    Skimping on safety precautions to save money. Selling low quality nuts and bolts as aviation grade to an airline, and causing a crash. There must be fifty ways, to recklessly murder.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 MarkAnthony
    ✭✭✭


    Skimping on safety precautions to save money. Selling low quality nuts and bolts as aviation grade to an airline, and causing a crash. There must be fifty ways, to recklessly murder.

    Negligently manslaughter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 NoQuarter
    ✭✭✭


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I thought, as I read that, you were going to describe the English case of Hyam, where Mrs Hyam was jealous of a woman called Mrs Boothe, and in the middle of the night, set fire to Mrs. Boothe's door through the letterbox.

    Mrs Booth escaped, but her children both died. Hyam claimed she only wanted to give Mrs Boothe a fright, and bore no intention to harm her or the children. The jury inferred intent, and returned a finding or murder, but it's not easy to see how.

    I'm not sure if there have been any Irish cases on indirect intention, I can't remember any.

    That would be the doctrine of transferred malice in operation too.
    Skimping on safety precautions to save money. Selling low quality nuts and bolts as aviation grade to an airline, and causing a crash. There must be fifty ways, to recklessly murder.

    I think Zambia means legally speaking, and would be correct in that case. But that is what we have juries for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 MarkAnthony
    ✭✭✭


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    I think Zambia means legally speaking, and would be correct in that case. But that is what we have juries for.

    But surely they'd never have murder put to them in that sort of scenario?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 Zambia
    ✭✭✭


    Skimping on safety precautions to save money. Selling low quality nuts and bolts as aviation grade to an airline, and causing a crash. There must be fifty ways, to recklessly murder.

    As the guys have said, legally to murder someone you need to prove there was a clear intent to do so.

    Just because your actions result in the death of someone its a long way from being murder.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 NoQuarter
    ✭✭✭


    Zambia wrote: »

    Just because your actions result in the death of someone its a long way from being murder.

    Not too long a way off though!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,346 NUTLEY BOY
    ✭✭✭


    Zambia wrote: »
    o

    I don't believe you can recklessly murder someone one.

    That is exactly the point about which I was wondering.

    What I was thinking was that if the degree of recklessness was so severe, on the facts, that it would effectively establish mens rea.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 Labarbapostiza
    ✭✭✭


    NUTLEY BOY wrote: »
    That is exactly the point about which I was wondering.

    What I was thinking was that if the degree of recklessness was so severe, on the facts, that it would effectively establish mens rea.


    I believe the charge in different jurisdictions is often culpable homicide. Mens rea may or may not be required.

    How is it decided that mens rea should be applied or disregarded in a case?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 OldNotWIse
    ✭✭✭✭


    Zambia wrote: »
    As the guys have said, legally to murder someone you need to prove there was a clear intent to do so.

    Just because your actions result in the death of someone its a long way from being murder.

    I believe it is intention to kill or cause serious injury to, and it does not necessarily have to be intention to kill/seriously injure the person who died.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 NoQuarter
    ✭✭✭



    How is it decided that mens rea should be applied or disregarded in a case?

    Mens Rea is a requirement of every crime.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 MarkAnthony
    ✭✭✭


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I believe it is intention to kill or cause serious injury to, and it does not necessarily have to be intention to kill/seriously injure the person who died.

    The doctrine of transferred malice see S4(1) Criminal Justice Act, 1964


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 234
    ✭✭✭


    The doctrine of transferred malice see S4(1) Criminal Justice Act, 1964

    That's not strictly transferred malice, though both are dealt with in s.4(1). Transferred malice involves a situation where you throw a rock at A but hit B. There the intention (malice) is transferred by the law so that there is sufficient mens rea.

    The intention element of murder includes intention to cause serious injury because for entirely practical reasons.

    For example, if you intend rob A but instead rob B, now knowing which house is which, then there is transferred malice. But if you throw a rock at A, intending to injure him, but miss, hitting an unstable tank of explosive gas which explodes destroying his house then the intention to commit the first crime does not transfer to the second. You would have to rely on recklessness.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 MarkAnthony
    ✭✭✭


    234 wrote: »
    That's not strictly transferred malice, though both are dealt with in s.4(1). Transferred malice involves a situation where you throw a rock at A but hit B. There the intention (malice) is transferred by the law so that there is sufficient mens rea.

    The intention element of murder includes intention to cause serious injury because for entirely practical reasons.

    For example, if you intend rob A but instead rob B, now knowing which house is which, then there is transferred malice. But if you throw a rock at A, intending to injure him, but miss, hitting an unstable tank of explosive gas which explodes destroying his house then the intention to commit the first crime does not transfer to the second. You would have to rely on recklessness.

    I'm not really sure what your point is I'm afraid.

    Malice.

    4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

    it was my understanding the bold type put the doctrine on a statutory footing.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 Labarbapostiza
    ✭✭✭


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    Mens Rea is a requirement of every crime.


    No, mens rea is not a requirement of every crime. And for a number of reasons. They most obvious being that the "That money was only resting in my account. I had not idea that I was either committing a crime or there was anything fishy about those Colombian gentlemen." defence can't be used.

    If you get caught money laundering in Ireland, mens rea is not required. Simply that you were reckless enough not to check is enough for a prosecution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 MarkAnthony
    ✭✭✭


    No, mens rea is not a requirement of every crime. And for a number of reasons. They most obvious being that the "That money was only resting in my account. I had not idea that I was either committing a crime or there was anything fishy about those Colombian gentlemen." defence can't be used.

    If you get caught money laundering in Ireland, mens rea is not required. Simply that you were reckless enough not to check is enough for a prosecution.

    Recklessness is a standard of mens rea. One of the last strict liability laws was dealt with in CC v Ireland (see Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1935). There may still be very minor offences which are of strict liability and technically criminal, but you'd be hard pressed to find them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 Pat Mustard
    ✭✭✭


    A lot of road traffic offences are strict liability offences; drink driving, speeding, etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 NoQuarter
    ✭✭✭


    No, mens rea is not a requirement of every crime. And for a number of reasons. They most obvious being that the "That money was only resting in my account. I had not idea that I was either committing a crime or there was anything fishy about those Colombian gentlemen." defence can't be used.

    If you get caught money laundering in Ireland, mens rea is not required. Simply that you were reckless enough not to check is enough for a prosecution.

    Yes I was about to say recklessness is a type of mens rea but MarkAnthony has pointed that out.

    I had overlooked the smaller strict liability offences though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 OldNotWIse
    ✭✭✭✭


    The doctrine of transferred malice see S4(1) Criminal Justice Act, 1964

    I know about transferred malice :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 Labarbapostiza
    ✭✭✭


    Can a judge instruct a jury specifically where and where not, they can derive a mens rea?

    Say in the instance of David Drumm ever being brought to Irish Justice (I slap my thigh and laugh). Could the judge instruct the jury to completely ignore the content of the Anglo tapes, and the tapes were not allowed in the trial. If Drumm lied through his teeth, and made statements absolutely contrary to the content of the tapes, and all the documentation showed incompetence without mal-intent, could Drumm walk free from court (well he'll walk free anyway - the judge not wanting to set a precedent of jailing his golfing pals, but you know what I mean).


Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Advertisement