In Act 29 mens rea is captured variously by expressions such as “intentionally” “with intent” “knowingly” “negligently” “unlawfully” “without lawful excuse” “dishonestly” “without reasonable excuse”.
INTENT
Intent is the commonest form of mens rea.
The concept of intent is categorized into two tiers –
⦁ basic intent
⦁ specific intent
Basic intent is the first level – the primary intent with which an act is done – that is doing an act intentionally – for e.g. intentionally throwing a stone at another or intentionally shooting at another.
Specific intent is the second level – the secondary intent which is formed while doing an act – i.e. the desired result – that is – you intentionally do an act (i.e. basic intent) with a further intention that it should achieve a particular result – that further intention is referred to as specific intent – e.g. you intentionally harm a person in order to cause his death – the intentional infliction of harm is the basic intent – while the intention to kill the person is the specific intent. Where an offence is defined so as to require both a basic and a specific intent, both levels of intent must be proved. R v STEANE, R v TOLSON
The concept of intent is an attempt by the law to inquire into the state of mind of a person at the time he committed a prohibited act. This is not easy act. Intent is governed by sec 11 of Act 29.
⦁ SECTION 11(1): Where a person does an act to cause an event or contribute to cause it, he intends to cause that event, even if he believed that event will not occur.
SENE v THE REPUBLIC: The first appellant engaged the deceased in a fight in the course of the fight, the second appellant threw a stone which hit the deceased to which he fell. Whilst on the ground, the first appellant hit him, resulting in him dying. They were charged and convicted of murder. Held: The court held that the element of intent is established by considering whether the accused had the intention of killing the deceased. Such intent was to be discerned from the instrument or weapon used in the killing or the manner of harm that was inflicted, and not merely who started the fight. A conviction of manslaughter was thereby substituted for murder.
⦁ SECTION 11(2): Where a person does an act intending to cause an event, but causes a different event is deemed to have intended to cause the second event. R v QUAYE (JACK TOLLER), R v IDIONG
⦁ SECTION 11(3): Where a person did not take reasonable care in his act, such that an event wouldn’t have occurred if he had, is deemed to have intended to cause that event unless he did not intend to cause that event.
SERECHI v THE STATE: The appellant were employees of the Ashanti Goldfields LTD. In Obuasi. They were conveying firewood trucks on a locomotive train from Obuasi to a village. Some non-employees jumped unto the trucks as the train started moving, clearly to catch a free ride. The appellant allegedly approached the deceased, beat him up and consequently, pushed him out of the trucks as it gathered speed. He was ran over by the train and died as a result. The appellant was convicted of murder. HELD: The court held that there was sufficient evidence of an intention to cause death and the infliction of the unlawful harm. If the appellant had taken reasonable caution, the death would not have been caused.
REPUBLIV v ADEKURA,
AKORFUL v THE STATE: the appellant was charged and convicted for the murder of his brother in law. He heard his dog barking. Fearing it would be a thief lingering about and with the intention of scaring him off took his gun and shot. In effect he had shot his brother in law. The main issue in this case is whether the killing is intentional. Held: The law presumes that an accused person intended to cause death if it would have appeared to any reasonable person that, if he did not use reasonable caution and observation that there would be great risk of his act causing or contributing to cause death. The presumption of intention is rebuttable only if the accused raises a reasonable doubt about his intention. From the facts the appellant claim he shot to scare off the thief and nothing else, the trial judge should have taken cognizance of that and directed the jury that the presumption was not absolute but rebuttable.
⦁ SECTION 11(4): Where a person causes an event against a group of people, he intends to cause harm to any one of them. He is liable even though the victim may not be in his contemplation. R v GYAMFI
⦁ SECTION 11(5): Where the accused intends to cause harm to a person but the act takes effect on another person, he is deemed to have intended to cause that event on the other person, although he may not have been in his contemplation. AMETEWEE v THE STATE:
⦁ SECTION 11(6): A defence is admissible to exculpate the accused in Section 11(5).
MOTIVE
The Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (ACT 29) do not provide any express provisions on motive. It is however recognized in our courts. Motive is not a defence in our courts
⦁ BLAKE v. DPP: A vicar wrote a biblical quotation on a concrete pillar to protest against the Gulf War. He claimed to have the consent of God. Held: He was found to be guilty of criminal damage. The court held that (1) Divine command is not a lawful excuse under the common law. (2) The act was not capable of protecting property in the Gulf States, as it was too remote. (3) Defence of necessity or duress unsuccessful, as divine command did not, objectively speaking, create an immediate danger or fear of danger.
⦁ HYAM v DPP: The appellant had been having a relationship with a Mr Jones. Mr. Jones then took up with another woman Mrs Booth and they were soon to be married. On hearing this news, she went to Mrs Booth’s house and poured petrol through the letter box and ignited it with matches and newspaper. She then drove home and did not alert anyone of the incident. Mrs Booth and her young son managed to escape the fire but her two daughters were killed. She contended that she did that to make Mrs Booth to leave the town. HELD: The court held that, the accused knew that it was probable that her acts would result in grievous bodily harm even though she did not desire to that result about.
⦁ AWEDAM v THE STATE: the appellant run over and killed the deceased with his car. He was convicted of murder. He claimed it was an accident. The prosecution however contended that he had a motive to kill the deceased since he was a witness in favor of the prosecution against his friend who had been convicted.
Held: that the motive was not relevant to find someone liable for a murder but rather that he intended to kill the person.
NEGLIGENCE
It is in Twofold: inadvertence causing injury and a professional acting without the requisite skill required at the particular moment. Not taking enough care when doing the act or not knowing how to do it properly is the prohibited state of mind i.e. the mens rea. When death results from negligence the conviction is manslaughter when the act amounts to a reckless disregard for life.
SECTION 12: A person causes an event negligently, where, without intending to cause the event, that person causes it by a voluntary act, done without the skill and care that are reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Acting without the required competence falls under this section. R v MENSAH, STATE v TSIBA, R v AWONU,
STATE v KWAKU NKYI: The accused, a student nurse, was asked to treat a sick child. He agreed to do so, and injected the child twice with what he believed was mepacrine. The child’s condition immediately deteriorated and he died within a few hours. Post mortem examination revealed that death was due to arsenic poisoning. The accused was charged with manslaughter and with practising medicine without being registered. Held: the accused was negligent in administering the wrong medicine however his negligence did not amount to a reckless disregard to human life to sustain a conviction of manslaughter. How he was found guilty of practicing medicine without a license.
⦁ SECTION 51: A person who causes the death of another person by an unlawful harm commits manslaughter, but if the harm causing the death is caused by negligence that person has not committed manslaughter unless the negligence amount to a reckless disregard for human life. R v BATEMAN:
⦁ SECTION 72: A person who negligently and unlawfully causes harm to any other person commits a misdemeanor.
4. SECTION 73: A person who
(a) being solely or partly in charge of a steam-engine, machinery, ship, boat, or dangerous thing or matter of any kind, or
(b) having undertaken or being engaged in medical or surgical treatment of a person, or
(c) having undertaken or being engaged in the dispensing supplying, selling, administering, or giving away of a medicine or a poisonous or dangerous matter, negligently endangers the life of any other person, commits a misdemeanor.
OKUTU v THE REPUBLIC R v NOAKES