Explain the meaning of the term ‘mens rea’ in criminal law

Mens rea is the guilty mind; what the Defendant was intending, thinking about, failing to think about. For a defendant to be found guilty of an offence, they must have the minimum level of mens rea required by the offence. The courts established several elements of mens rea. The strongest level is intent. In the case of Mohan 1975, the court gave an example of and defined intent as “the decision to bring about, within so far as it lies within the accused power [the prohibited consequence] no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not.” 
Direct intent is the strongest level of mens rea; a deliberate action which causes some kind of harm was almost certainly intended. This is usually the mens rea for more serious crimes such as murder or s.18 GBH. Indirect intent is when the Defendant intends to do something which is not to cause murder or GBH, but death or serious injury does occur. In the case of Woollin 1998, the Defendant threw his 3-month baby towards its pram against a wall. The baby suffered head injuries and died. The court came up with a two-part test for the case of Woollin; “was death or serous injury a virtual certainty?” and “did the Defendant realise this was so?” If the answer to both of these questions is “yes,” then the D is said to have indirect intent and this can be used as evidence for intention – the foresight of consequences. The weakest level of mens rea is recklessness; taking on an unjustifiable risk. In the case of Cunningham 1957, the D tore a gas meter from the wall of a house, intending to steal the money from it. This caused gas to seep into the house next door, where a woman was affected by it. Cunningham was charged against s.2 of the OAPA 1861, for “maliciously administering a noxious thing,” however the D did not realise the risk of gas escaping into the adjacent house. He had not intended to cause harm, nor had he taken a risk he knew about, so he was found ‘not guilty.’ The court came up with a two-part test for the case of Cunningham; “Did the D know there was a risk?” and “Did he take the risk anyway?”