THE IMPORTANCE OF MENS REA IN ESTABLISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY VIS-A-VIS THE RATIONALE FOR STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCES
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The doctrine of mens rea is a central distinguishing feature of criminal justice system in old common law traditions. Yet it is one very controversial principle which suffers from an untold degree of confusion in its meaning. This problem of fluidity in denotation becomes all the more manifest when the courts are faced with the task of determining the guilt or criminal liability of a suspect. Under English criminal law, this hermeneutical problem had been a result of sundry causes. First and foremost, there are two distinct though interconnected levels of meaning attributable to the expression mens rea, namely, the narrow and the broad. While the former signifies the specific mental element that is required to be defined and proved in respect of a particular offence, the latter refers to a general principle of criminal responsibility which demands proof of a guilty mind against the accused. In other words, while in the narrow sense, one can talk of the mens rea of, for instance, receiving stolen property, or of forgery, or of assault, the use of mens rea in the broad sense connotes, until the contrary is proved, the general presumption by the courts, of an accused’s criminal intent when considering any offence. This is what is normally called the doctrine or the principle of mens rea[1].
[1] C.O. Okonkwo, Criminal Law in Nigeria, Second Edition, Spectrum Books Ltd., Ibadan, 2002, p. 49