Mens rea is the mental element of a crime; each offence has its own mens rea. For a person to be found guilty the accused must have at least the minimum level of mens rea, however this does not apply with strict liability offences.
There are different levels of mens rea with intention being the highest. Intention plays a very important role when discussing mens rea. It can divided into two concepts, specific intent (direct intent) and oblique intent (foresight of consequences).
In specific intent the defendant intends to kill the victim of cause GBH, therefore it is enough to find a person guilty of a crime. In oblique intent (foresight of consequences) the defendant may not have a desired result (e.g. to kill the victim, just to scare them) but in order to achieve his goal, he may have realised or foreseen the consequences, and decided to act regardless. (Woolin 2000) the defendant threw his baby against the wall to stop it from crying because of the injuries sustained the baby died. .
The other levels of mens rea include subjective recklessness- where the defendant realises the risk and decides to carry on with his actions. In Caldwell (1957) the defendant tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house in order to steal money in it. This caused the gas to seep into the next house and the woman was affected by it. He was not found guilty because he did not realise that the gas would seep but he was charged under the 1861 act of maliciously administering a noxious thing.
In the case of Savage (1991) the courts confirmed that "maliciously" when used in an act meant that the defendant either acted intentionally or was subjectively reckless about the risks.
There are two types of malice; general malice- where the defendant does not have a specific victim in mind i.e. terrorism attacks- and transferred malice- where the defendant is found guilty of a crime if he intended to commit it against a person but instead commits against someone else.
