The Mens Rea of murder is an intention to kill or an intention to cause GBH. Murder is a specific intent offence, meaning that it can only be committed with intention. Since Dave has taken up a knife, it could be argued that he must have at least an intent to wound, which satisfies the intention for GBH, since a knife is a weapon which can only cause a wound at the minimum. It may not be evident that Dave directly intended the consequences of the act, Edward’s death. Lord Bridge pointed out that it is quite possible to intend a result which you did not actually want, during R v Larsonneur.
If the jury are unsatisfied that there is proof of direct intention, under Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the jury can infer indirect intention if they choose to do so. The test for indirect intention, the virtual certainty test, was developed over cases such as Nedrick, during which the defendant threw a lit rag through a letterbox, causing the deaths of the occupants of the house other than those he had intended, and during Woollin, where a father threw his child against a hard surface, not intending to cause the child’s death. The principle established by these cases, and other cases such as R v Moloney, and R v Hancock and Shankland, was that if the outcome of the defendant’s actions was not his main purpose, virtual certainty can be proved if the outcome was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, to the point at which it became a virtual certainty of the act. Therefore the jury may choose to infer indirect intention in the case of Dave.
Dave suffered great stress and anxiety regarding his car. This might suggest that he suffers from an abnormality of mind. The law of Diminished Responsibility, established in S2 of the Homicide Act 1957, states that where a defendant suffered from an abnormality of mind which impaired their responsibility for their actions, they will not be sentenced with murder. Diminished responsibility is a four stage test. Firstly, it must be proved that the defendant suffered from an abnormality of mind, described in Byrne as so different from a normal mind that a reasonable person would term it abnormal. Dave may be argued to have an abnormality of mind, shown by his paranoid behaviour, believing his neighbours to be conspiring against him. The second stage of the test is to show that the abnormality was caused in one of three ways, inherent cause, mental arrest or retardation, or disease and injury. In Tandy, it was stated that intoxication was not an abnormality of mind, unless the defendant had a history of alcohol abuse leading to brain damage. Two medical experts will have to provide evidence that Dave’s abnormality of mind was caused in one of these ways. Stage three states that the abnormality must have been a significant cause of the action, and cases such as Gittens and more recently Dietschmann have stated that where the defendant was also intoxicated, the abnormality must still have been a significant cause, regardless of the intoxication. Finally, it must be proved that the abnormality significantly impaired the defendant’s responsibility for their actions. It need not completely impair their responsibility. In Byrne for example, the defendant’s impulses were not completely irresistible, and it was uncertain whether this meant he could use the defence. It must be proved the Dave was significantly impaired from his responsibility for his actions, if he intends to use the defence.
If Dave is successful in using this partial defence, his charge will be substituted for one of manslaughter. This means he will not be subject to a mandatory life sentence, since manslaughter sentencing is up to life.
