Criminal Law: Mens Rea in Murder Case

This essay delves into the critical legal concept of mens rea, specifically in the context of a murder case. It examines the scenario of an individual, Jimmy, who breaks into a store and attacks the manager, leading to his death. The essay meticulously analyzes the legal principles surrounding intention to kill or cause serious harm, drawing upon landmark cases such as Hyam v. DPP, R v Cunningham, and R v Wollin. It explores both the objective and subjective tests for establishing mens rea, and applies these principles to the given scenario. The essay also considers the concept of the 'eggshell skull rule' and concludes that the defendant's actions, coupled with the surrounding facts and medical evidence, demonstrate the necessary mens rea for a murder conviction.

Introduction.
The principle area that this problem question is concerned with is to
establish the presence of the intention to kill or necessary mens rea to
the harm and death inflicted upon the 75 year old manager of the local
spar Ronnie in which jimmy broke into to steal money. It must be proven
beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution that accused indeed
actually intended to kill or seriously cause harm to the deceased man.
Lord Hailsham LC states that if a person in full knowledge of the
danger involved, and without lawful excuse, intentionally does that
which exposes a victim to the risk of probable serious bodily harm or
death and the victim dies. The person responsible for this crime is guilty
of murder.[1] In order to successfully convict the accused. The people
of director public prosecution will have to present the issue in their exact
manner on the day of the event. And in order prosecute the accused
they will support their stand against the accused with a credible law and
apply the law to this case in order to win the support of the judge and
jury.
Issue
In this scenario, the director of public prosecutions will have to prove
that the harm and death caused to Ronnie by the accused man jimmy
was intentional. And to evidently determine if the accused actions by
hitting the deceased man as much as he did were the probable cause of
death. In order for the prosecution to achieve this goal, they will need to
obtain all possible information in relation to this case in question. Which
will include the medical autopsy of the deceased mans corpse to
determine the cause and manner of death. However, in defense, the
accused would want to argue that his conviction would be not logical as
he did not intend to kill the man as he claimed to have done what he did
in order to “frighten” the man. Notwithstanding the possible presence of
necessary men rea or intention to kill jimmy the accused man in
question did evidently commit the external element of the act by taking
the first step of going to steal money from the local spar and eventually
attacking the man and punching him several times proves this was a
guilty act. this goes a long long way to prove that this killing was
unlawful. Thus, the actus reus was also present. The presence of this
two elements ultimately proves murder.
Law
A set precedent case that elaborates a clear instance of intention which
would go a long way in establishing the presence of necessary mens
rea in the murder of the deceased man and proving beyond reasonable
doubt to the judge and jury that indeed, the accused Mr. jimmy intended
to kill or cause serious harm is The English case of Hyam. v. DPP[2]
which is cited as authority for the proposition that an accused intends a

particular result if he or she foresees it as a highly probable
consequence of his actions, notwithstanding that he did not desire that
result. In this case, The Defendant set fire to a house by pouring about
half a gallon of gasoline through a letter box of the house and lighting it
on fire. Four people were asleep in the house. Two made it out, two
young girls died in the fire. The jury was instructed that the intent to do
grievous bodily harm was sufficient to convict for murder. The
Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder. The Defendant
appealed, arguing that he did not foresee the deaths of the individuals
and the crime of murder required an intent to endanger an individual’s
life, not just an intent to do grievous bodily harm. His appeal was
dismissed. On the grounds that the facts surrounding the case
suggested sufficient mens rea for the murder.
A similar case is that of R v Cunningham[3] where the defendant
attacked the victim in a pub in the false belief that the victim was having
sexual sexual intimacy with his fiancé. The defendant beat him down to
the ground and continuously struck him on the head with a stool. The
victim suffered a fractured skull and a subdural hemorrhage he died 7
days later. The jury convicted the defendant of murder having found that
he intended really serious harm at the time of the attack.
Notwithstanding that he defendant claimed to have not intended to kill.
[4]
More over, there is the principle of the egg shell skull rule in the law of
torts that states that one should take their victim as you find them, so
even if Mr. Ronnie was more prone to shock than any other person the
defendant is still liable for his death based on the egg shell skull rule.
Application
It seems quite satisfactory to say that with the analysis of precedent
cases that when the accused, Mr. jimmy attacked the man by punching
him as much as he did it was highly probable to him at that time that it
would result to serious bodily harm or death which proves intention.
Also the fact that the medical result of the states that he struck the
deceased man five to eight times which ultimately amounted to shock
due to general injuries in order to “frighten” him like the defendant
claims. According to the oxford dictionary to frighten a person means to
make that person afraid and anxious. The victim in question was 75-
year-old elderly man he did not need that much force in order to frighten
him. The surrounding facts at this point prove also the subjective
element of the mens rea because he was personally aware of his
actions. thus, satisfying the criteria demands of the subjective test for
the establishment of necessary mens rea. A case that shows a clear
reflection of the application of the subjective test is the case of R. v.
Wollin[5] where the defendant Having given various explanations for
his three-month-old son's injuries in the ambulance and in the first two

police interviews, Woollin eventually admitted that he had 'lost his cool'
when his son had choked on his food. He had grabbed him, shaken him
and thrown him across the room with considerable force towards a
pram standing next to a wall about five feet away. He stated that he had
not intended or thought that he would kill the child and had not wanted
the child to die, but his actions caused the infant's death as the child hit
the floor, missing the pram.
More so, from an objective point of view, most men at the age of 75
years when struck in that manner would result to death. More so, from
an inferential reasoning, there is an old reasoning that a man is intends,
the natural and probable consequences of his acts the important word is
“natural” this word demonstrates the idea that in the ordinary course of
events a certain act would lead to a certain consequence.[6]
In conclusion, it is highly satisfactory to say that by the conduct of the
defendant Mr. jimmy and the surrounding facts of the case which
include the medical analysis of the deceased man which exposed the
severity of the act which helped in establishing the fact that his conduct
was the cause of death. Also, the application of the objective and
subjective test go a long way to prove that the act possessed the
necessary mens rea required for the conviction of murder.
Bibliography
J. C Smith, Brian Hogan and J. C Smith, Smith & Hogan Criminal Law
(LexisNexis/Butterworths 2002).
Hyam. V. DPP [1975] AC 55
R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566
R. v. Wollin [1999] AC 82.
E-lawresources.co.uk, "R V Cunningham" (2016) <http://e-
lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Cunningham.php> accessed 13 January 2016