## Facts

- The defendant, Venna, was involved in a confrontation with police officers.
- During the incident, Venna kicked out, striking an officer’s hand and causing injury.
- Venna argued he did not intend to injure the officer and challenged his conviction for assault.

## Issues

1. Whether the mens rea for assault requires proof of intention to cause harm or whether recklessness can suffice.
2. Whether subjective awareness of risk, as opposed to objective foreseeability, is the correct standard for recklessness in assault.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed Venna’s argument that intention was required for assault.
- The court held that the mens rea for assault can be established by either intention or subjective recklessness.
- The defendant’s recognition of the risk of harm and conscious disregard for that risk is sufficient to establish guilt.
- The court confirmed that negligence is not enough; there must be subjective awareness of the risk.

## Legal Principles

- The mens rea for assault is satisfied by either intention or subjective recklessness.
- Subjective recklessness requires actual awareness by the defendant of the risk created and a decision to act regardless.
- The distinction between subjective and objective recklessness is important, with the latter based on what a reasonable person would foresee, not the defendant’s actual state of mind.
- The approach in R v Venna aligns with prior principles from R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396.
- The standards set in R v Venna continue to influence subsequent interpretations of recklessness, including in cases like R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50.

## Conclusion

R v Venna established that for assault, it is sufficient if the defendant acted intentionally or with subjective recklessness, requiring proof of the defendant’s awareness and conscious disregard of risk; this standard remains central in defining mens rea for assault in criminal law.


R v Venna [1976] QB 421 (CA)