1B - Mens Rea - Case List

Question 1

Mohan

Answer 1

Direct Intention

D’s main aim or purposr

Question 2

Woolin

Answer 2

Woolin was convicted of murdering his 3 year old son. Alleged to lost his temper and threw his son towards his pram. He hit the floor fracturing his skull which he died from. Woolin had learning disabilities

Indirect intention

Question 3

Matthews and Alleyne

Answer 3

M & A pushed the V off a bridge into a river knowing he couldn’t swim. They watched him head towards the bank but didn’t stay to check he actually got out. He didn’t get out and he drowned

Question 4

R v Cunningham

Answer 4

Defined recklessness as ‘accused foresaw that the particular kind of harm might be done but went on to take the risk’

Question 5

R v G and R

Answer 5

2 boys putting newspapers in the bin and set fire to it, set fire to the Co-op as well and caused £££’s in damage, boys had learning disabilities

Question 6

Savage

Answer 6

HOL confirmed that any offences where definition in Act of Parliament used word ‘maliciously’ meant doing something intentionally or being reckless as to the risk involved

Question 7

Sweet v Parsley

Answer 7

Sweet was convicted under The Dangerous Dogs Act 1965; she had sub-let some rooms to students who, unknown to her, smoked cannabis there. She was convicted of being concerned in the management of the premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis. On appeal, her conviction was quashed. The HOL decided that this was a ‘truly criminal’ offence and thus needed a mens rea

Question 8

Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A.G

Answer 8

Lord Scarman said - presumption in favour of mens rea which is especially strong in ‘truly criminal cases’ and weaker for regulatory offences, or for offences of social concern
Builders were found guilty when part of a building they were constructing fell down because they hadn’t followed one of plans right. The fact that they didn’t realise the danger was irrelevant; the offence was one of strict liability. No mens rea was needed

Question 9

Alphacell Ltd v Woodward

Answer 9

Company had taken reasonable precautions to prevent pollution from its work entering the river. But pumps became clogged with brambles and leaves and pollution did enter the river. Court decided that D’s had in facts caused polluted matter to enter the river and that strict liability DID apply. Company was guilty

Question 10

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah

Answer 10

The owners of a shop were aware of the rules about selling lottery tickets, put up signs and told their staff not to sell them to anyone under 16. But they still sold a ticket to an underage boy despite him looking older. They were guilty, it was strict liability

Question 11

B v DPP

Answer 11

A 14 year old boy was charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency. Contrary to S1(1) of the indecency with Children Act 1960. He had sat next to a 13 year old girl on a bus and repeatedly asked her to perform oral sex with him. She refused and he believed her to be older than 14. Court had to question whether the offence was under s.1(1) was of strict liability in relation to the age of the victim

Question 12

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd

Answer 12

The appellant, a pharmacist, was convicted of an offence under s.58 (2) of the Medicines Act 1968 of supplying prescription drugs without a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. The appellant had allowed prescription drugs to be supplied on production of fraudulent prescriptions whereby a doctors signature had been copied. The appellant wasn’t party to the fraud and had no knowledge of the forged signatures and believed the prescriptions were genuine

Question 13

Latimer

Answer 13

transferred malice
D aimed a blow at a man in a pub with his belt. The belt bounced off the man and hit a woman in the face. Latimer was guilty of assault against a woman even though he didn’t mean to hit her

Question 14

Pembilton

Answer 14

The D threw a stone, intending to hit people with whom he had been fighting. The stone hit and broke a window. The intention to hit people could not be transferred to the window therefore making it a different crime- criminal damage

Question 15

Thabo Meli

Answer 15

D’s attacked a man and believed they had killed him, they then pushed him over a low cliff. He had actually survived the attack but died of exposure when unconscious at the foot of the cliff. Held that the D’s were guilty of murder. They tried to argue that they thought they had killed him so the act that actually killed him had no intention as their aim was to dispose of the body. Mens rea is evident throughout, the actus reus comes in later

Question 16

Fagan v MPC

Answer 16

Fagan was told by a police officer to part by a kerb and whilst doing so accidentally ran over his foot without realising. Initially he refused to move the car. When the policeman pointed out what had happened he asked Fagan to get off his foot several times and eventually Fagan did move. Fagan was convicted of assaulting the police officer in the execution of his duty. CoA held that once Fagan knew the car was on the officers foot he has the required mens rea. As the acres reus (putting the car on his foot) was still continuing, the two elements were then present at the same time