Mens Rea.

NUTLEY BOY

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

Is there case law ?

Little CuChulainn

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

NUTLEY BOY

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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

Murder.

Tom Young

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

conorh91

Recklessness is a type of mens rea.

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

Zambia

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Murder.

o

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

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.

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

NoQuarter

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

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.

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

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)!

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.

MarkAnthony

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

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.

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.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

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.

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?

Zambia

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

NoQuarter

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

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

Mens Rea is a requirement of every crime.

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

234

MarkAnthony wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

MarkAnthony

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

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.

Pat Mustard

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

NoQuarter

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

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.

OldNotWIse

MarkAnthony wrote: »

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

I know about transferred malice

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).

MarkAnthony

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

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).

There are many resources that will explain charges to juries; however I think what you're driving at would be dealt with in voir dire (in the absence of the jury) and if the evidence was inadmissible the jury would never have sight of it. That said of course they would be aware through the media and this would be dealt with, if I'm not mistaken, in the charge to the jury.