Mens rea or strict liability?

In People (DPP) V O’Shea, the Supreme Court delivered an important judgment that seeks to clarify what the prosecution must prove in an action for careless driving causing death or serious body harm.

Arising from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the matter, questions arose as to whether the prosecution was required to prove mens rea on the part of an accused, thereby demonstrating intent or recklessness on their part.

Careless driving resulting in serious harm or death

The accused was tried and convicted on the relatively new offence of careless driving resulting in serious harm or death, which was created by section 4 of the Road Traffic (No 2) Act 2011.

In his charge to the jury, the trial judge categorised the offence in question as one of ‘strict liability’ rather than referring to the essential components of mens rea: the offence being committed intentionally or recklessly. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, but this decision was itself overturned in the Supreme Court.

Ciara Hallinan is a solicitor with Michael J Staines & Co. Writing in the Gazette, she explores the history of the case, the reasons set out by the Supreme Court, and the implications of the judgment. She wishes to thank David Staunton BL for reviewing the article.

• Read the full article in the November 2017 Gazette

Archive & subscribe

For current and past issues of the magazine, visit the online Gazette.

To have future issues delivered to your home or office, subscribe today.