Mens rea, intention and recklessness

The leading authorities to know, and how the doctrine developed over time. Liability for most serious offences requires proof of a culpable mental state. Direct intent is the defendant's purpose; oblique intent may be found where the relevant consequence was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that. Recklessness is now subjective, the defendant must have foreseen the risk and unreasonably gone on to take it.

Leading cases

  1. R v Cunningham (1957) [1957] 2 QB 396, Court of Criminal Appeal.

    Established that recklessness in statutory offences is subjective, the defendant must actually foresee the risk.

  2. R v Moloney (1985) [1985] AC 905, House of Lords.

    Began the modern law on oblique intent, foresight is evidence of intention, not intention itself.

  3. R v Woollin (1999) [1999] 1 AC 82, House of Lords.

    The current oblique-intent direction, the jury may find intention where death or GBH was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that.

  4. R v G (2003) [2003] UKHL 50, House of Lords.

    Overruled Caldwell on objective recklessness, restored the subjective Cunningham standard for criminal damage and beyond.

  • Home
  • About
  • Pricing
  • How it works
  • Question Advisor
  • Foundations
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refunds Policy
  • AI Disclaimer
  • Duty of care (negligence)
  • Negligent misstatement (pure economic loss)
  • Consideration
  • Misrepresentation
  • Judicial review, grounds of review
  • Frustration of contract
  • Promissory estoppel