Criminal Law: Doctrine of Mens Rea

Introduction

What is a crime? It is difficult to define what is a crime in a simple sentence and also this term ‘crime’ and ‘criminal liability’ are widely used in Criminal law. Simply we can say that crime is a human action or inaction (omission) but this cannot fill all the gaps in this wider subject. Under these two facts there lies another two special elements that are called Constituent Elements of Crime. These two elements are the essential parts of a crime and those are Actus Reus and Mens Rea. These two elements are also known as the essence of criminal law. In this, we are going to look at the development and the nature of the doctrine of Mens Rea.

The essence of Criminal Law

The essence of criminal law which is stated in the Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’. The basic meaning is ‘a man should be held legally guilty unless his mind is blameworthy’. In the book Latin for Lawyers, this is defined as ‘The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent’. This principle is known as the golden thread in criminal law. In this, two factors can be identify;

Actus Reus (Guilty Act)

Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

A crime is something that is an offence done against the whole society and heshe must be punished for their crimes, therefore if the offender did the guilty act but didn't have the intention of doing it, is heshe must be punished for the act itself. Until the thirteenth century, the act itself was only considered when the accused are being punished. This doctrine was used afterwards when an embryonic form of mens rea was introduced by the English Jurists Bracton and Hale, because of this, the Latin maxim stated above became the essence of criminal law and it is used in courts since the thirteenth century.

Some courts have gone far as to say that it is ‘a sacred principle of criminal jurisprudence that the intention to commit the crime is the essence of the crime’. Proving the guilty state of mind in a crime became an essential part of criminal law. As for the above statement, it tells us that without the mens rea the accused cannot be held liable for his crimes by the prosecution and therefore heshe cannot be blameworthy considering the act itself. In the case Duncan v. State, Robert Duncan was held guilty at court for carrying off slaves in his steamboat without the knowledge or the consent of the owner owners of slaves. ‘The carrying away was no doubt, prima facia evidence of the reception’ but it was proven that the accused did not know that a negro slave was there inside the board hidden. This crime is done without the mens rea element. Then without the intention of doing the wrongful act, it was proven that Duncan was not guilty because of the absence of the doctrine of mens rea in this crime. In this case, we can see that it has been stated that there must be an intention to prove the criminal act and it is the essence and the soul of the crime. Without intention, a man cannot be held for a criminal offence.

The development of doctrine mens rea

In ancient times Roman law was the ideal law of the world but men's rea wasn't originated through Roman law. In Irish law mens rea was considered in particular instances regarding punishing homicide and this also helped in building up the theory of mens rea. To build up its roots and to be an essential part of criminal law it was also been nurtured by Salic law, Angelo-Saxon law, Hebrew law and also Christian theology mainly considering the Bible. Before the doctrine of mens rea or without a right definition, it was only considered that the actus reus, the action or inaction was the focused justification of criminal acts. Afterwards the mens rea element was defined and being used in English courts. Howard, a famous modern writer stated ‘The development of mens rea represented the growing influence in the criminal law of ethical consideration, of morality’.

Doctrine mens rea in Sri Lanka.

Being a colony of the United Kingdom, the influence of English law was added to the judicial system of Sri Lanka. In the English common law, the element of mens rea was developed through court decisions. In Sri Lanka, it is statutorily defined regarding all the elements of a crime. These definitions are stated in the Sri Lankan Penal Code which was enacted in 1883. In this, it clearly mentioned offences, how to punish offenders and also how men's rea affect in the criminal act therefore how to punish or to justify the act or omission. This is how the nature of mens rea is measured in Sri Lankan courts.

Nature of Doctrine mens rea.

When we look at the nature of key elements in a crime, actus reus can be defined as an action or abstention of action but when it comes to the mens rea element It cannot be explained in a simple manner. American authority has declared that mens rea chameleon-like, takes different colours in different surroundings'. With this statement, we can see that the nature of mens rea changes with time and situation. In this, we will be looking at three basic concepts that were involved in the doctrine of mens rea.

• Intention
• Rashness (Recklessness)
• Negligence

1.Intention

A simple definition of intention is the desire of the person. In criminal law, the intention of the accused is to be known before heshe being punished. To be punished the intention has to be voluntary. The penal code of Sri Lanka has the power to define an act whether it is intended or unintended.

E.g.: Penal Code section 150, section 293.

In the nature of the doctrine of mens rea we can see in the early stages how the intention was incorporated with this principle in the case of Regina v. Prince. In this, the defendant took an underage girl from his father's possession believing that she is over the age of consent. In this case, we see that the act was done with the guilty mind and this act done by the defendant was immoral. So Lord Bramwell stated that the defendant had the intention and the mens rea necessary for the criminal liability. This shows that not knowing about the crime will not be effective in every crime. As for the above case, Lord Brett stated that at least Prince intended to do something criminal and it is immoral. Morality is also having a role in defining mens rea and with the morality it was developed gradually.

2.Rashness (Recklessness)

Rashness is doing a criminal act knowing that the act behaviour itself will cause a crime with the hope that the consequences of that action will not follow. Many crimes are based on this risk-taking manner but ultimately those criminal acts are being revealed and will be punished through a criminal trial. In Sri Lanka rashness is accepted by the penal code as a sufficient mens rea of some offences. All risk-taking act that has been done by the accused is demonstrated as the conduct of rashness therefore some acts may be insignificant and could be justifiably disregarded.

3.Negligence

Negligence can be defined as a breach of duty that has been imposed by law hence it can be also understood as an omission. English law is against admitting negligence as criminal responsibility. Turner has excluded negligence from the scope of mens rea. In criminal liability of Sri Lankans negligence can be found in specific circumstances and also it has been known as a sufficient mental element of some offences. When it comes to civil law and criminal law standards of negligence are different, namely, this is based on the views and the different implications of criminal and civil liabilities.

Conclusion

In the above-discussed factors, we can see that doctrine of mens rea is not an element that can be defined in a certain way and it is also a changing doctrine. It is known as the essence of crime and it is also like a management spine to a crime. Without this element, crime cannot happen. Also, the development and nature of the doctrine of mens rea was not something that happened at once, its development and nature were nurtured gradually. The doctrine of mens rea plays an essential role in Sri Lanka also and it is supported with the penal code of Sri Lanka.

Bibliography

1. G. A. Endlich, Criminal Law Magazine and Reporter, Vol. 13, Issue 6 (November 1891), p. 831-844.
2. G. L Peiris, General Principles of Criminal Liability in Sri Lanka (1971).
3. Green, History of the English People, | book 1 and 2.
4. Paul T. Robertson, Mens Rea (22 January 2014) https:doi.org10.10029781118517383.wbeccj378 (01 Mar. 21).
5. Penal Code of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (1883).