20-Mens rea

Question 1

What type of offence does not require a ‘mens rea’?

Answer 1

Strict liability offences

Question 2

What are the levels of mens rea?

Answer 2

1) Intention
2) Subjective recklessness
3) Negligence

Question 3

What case provides a definition of ‘intent’?

What definition is given?

Answer 3

R v Mohan (1975)

‘The decision to bring about a prohibited consequence’

Facts: D drove vehicle at policeman fast only for policeman to jump out of the way at the last moment.

Question 4

R v Mohan (1975)

What does this case demonstrate regarding mens rea?

Answer 4

The definition of intent.

That motive does not equal intent.

‘The decision to bring about a prohibited consequence’

Facts: D drove vehicle at policeman fast only for policeman to jump out of the way at the last moment.

Question 5

What case demonstrates that motive does not equal intent?

Answer 5

R v Mohan (1975)

Also establishes the definition of intent.

Question 6

What case demonstrates the difference between oblique and direct intent?

Answer 6

Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Facts: D’s intended to scare V into not attending work by throwing a cement block onto the road infront of V car but concrete actually hit V and killed him.

Question 7

Hancock and Shankland (1986)

What does this case demonstrate regarding mens rea?

Answer 7

The diferrence between oblique and direct intent.

Facts: D’s intended to scare V into not attending work by throwing a cement block onto the road infront of V car but concrete actually hit V and killed him.

Question 8

What is the leading case on the principle of ‘foresight of consequences?

Answer 8

Woollin (1998)

Facts: D threw his 3 month old baby towards his pram but the baby sustained fatal head injuries. The jury was directed not to ‘find’ an intent for murder unless they felt that death or serious bodily harm was virtually certain.

Question 9

Woollin (1998)

What does this case demonstrate regarding mens rea?

Answer 9

The leading case on ‘foresight of consequences’.

Facts: D threw his 3 month old baby towards his pram but the baby sustained fatal head injuries. The jury was directed not to ‘find’ an intent for murder unless they felt that death or serious bodily harm was virtually certain.

Question 10

What statute provides the definition of ‘foresight of consequence’?

Answer 10

s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967

Question 11

s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967

Answer 11

Provides the definition of ‘foresight of consequence’

Question 12

What does s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 state regarding foresight of consequence?

Answer 12

A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence:

a) shall not be bound to infer that he intended the consequence by reason of it being a natural consequence but
b) by reference to all the evidence it is likely (virtually certain) that D realised the consequence of his actions.

Question 13

What cases developed the principle of ‘foresight of consequences’?

Answer 13

Moloney (1985)-Quick draw incident

Hancock and Shankland (1986)-Cement block onto road

Nedrick (1986)-Paraffin through letter box

Woollin (1998)-Threw baby at pram

Question 14

What case shows that foresight of consequence is NOT intention, it is evidence of intention?

Answer 14

Moloney (1985)

Facts: D was drunk with step father and both were competing to load a shotgun the quickest-V dared D to pull trigger and D did killing the V. Conviction for murder quashed by HoL.

Question 15

Moloney (1985)

What does this case demonstrate regarding intention?

Answer 15

That foresight of consequence is not intention.

Facts: D was drunk with step father and both were competing to load a shotgun the quickest-V dared D to pull trigger and D did killing the V. Conviction for murder quashed by HoL.

Question 16

What case est. from the Court of Appeal that when deciding on foresight of consequence a jury should ask themselves:

1) How probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s voluntary act?
2) Did D foresee that consequence?

Answer 16

Nedrick (1986)

Facts: D poured paraffing through letterbox and set it alight to scare her but a fire broke out and killed a child.

Question 17

Nedrick (1986)

What did this case establish regarding ‘foresight of consequence?

Answer 17

Court of Appeal est. 2 questions jury should ask themselves regarding foresight of consequence:

1) How probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s voluntary act?
2) Did D foresee that consequence?

Question 18

What were the questions for juror’s est by the Court of Appeal in the case of Nedrick (1986)?

Answer 18

1) How probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s voluntary act?
2) Did D foresee that consequence?

Question 19

In what two different ways has the rule in Woollin (1998) been interpreted?

Answer 19

1) Re A (2001)-Thought that Woollin meant that foresight of consequence is intention.
2) Mathews and Alleyne (2003)-Foresight of consequence is only evidence of intention.

Question 20

What is a definition of ‘recklessness’?

Answer 20

Where D knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk.

Question 21

Where D knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk.

What is this a definition of?

Answer 21

Subjective recklessness

Question 22

What case gives an example of subjective recklessness?

Answer 22

R v Cunningham (1957)

Facts: D tore gas meter from wall of an empty house to steal money in it-unbeknownst to D this caused gas to seep into next door and cause injury-he could not be convicted of the charged offence because it required a minimum of ‘subjective recklessness’.

Question 23

R v Cunningham (1957)

What does this case demonstrate regarding mens rea?

Answer 23

Subjective recklessness

Facts: D tore gas meter from wall of an empty house to steal money in it-unbeknownst to D this caused gas to seep into next door and cause injury-he could not be convicted of the charged offence because it required a minimum of ‘subjective recklessness’.

Question 24

Some offences where recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea?

Answer 24

1) Assault and battery
2) ABH (s47 OAPA 1861)
3) Malicious wounding (s20 OAPA 1861)

Question 25

What case shows that where ‘recklessness’ is sufficient for the mens rea of an offence it must be subjective recklessness?

Answer 25

G and another (2003)

Facts: D’s were two boys who set fire to a pile of newspapers and put them under a bin thinking they would go out-but their conviction was quashed because it was held they were not aware of the risk.

Question 26

G and another (2003)

What does this case demonstrate regarding intention?

Answer 26

That any offence where ‘recklessness’ is sufficient for mens rea, must be judged subjectively-subjective recklessness.

Facts: D’s were two boys who set fire to a pile of newspapers and put them under a bin thinking they would go out-but their conviction was quashed because it was held they were not aware of the risk.

Question 27

What is the general rule regarding negligence as a level of intent?

Answer 27

Negligence is generally a lower level of fault meaning it may constitute a civil wrong but not a criminal wrong.

Question 28

What is negligence?

Answer 28

When someone fails to meet the standard of the reasonable person.

Question 29

When someone fails to meet the standard of the reasonable person.

What is this a definition of?

Answer 29

Negligence

Question 30

What are the 2 exceptions to the rule that negligence is generally a lower level of fault?

Answer 30

1) Some statutory offences

2) One form of manslaughter where negligence is so severe-‘Gross negligence’ R v Adomako (1994)

Question 31

What case is an example of transferred malice?

Answer 31

Latimer (1886)

Facts: D intended to strike someone with a belt but ended up hitting a woman in the face-D guilty of an assault against the woman.

Question 32

Latimer (1886)

What does this case demonstrate regarding mens rea?

Answer 32

Transferred malice

Facts: D intended to strike someone with a belt but ended up hitting a woman in the face-D guilty of an assault against the woman.

Question 33

What case demonstrates that there must be a coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

Answer 33

Thabo Meli v R (1954)

Facts: D’s attacked a man and believed they had killed him so threw him off a low cliff. In fact it was the exposure that killed the man-D’s were still guilty of murder.

Question 34

Thabo Meli v R (1954)

What does this case demonstrate regarding intention?

Answer 34

That there must be a coincidence of actus reus and mens rea for there to have been an offence.

Facts: D’s attacked a man and believed they had killed him so threw him off a low cliff. In fact it was the exposure that killed the man-D’s were still guilty of murder.

Question 35

What case demonstrates a continuing act constituting a coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

Answer 35

Fagan v Met Police Commissioner (1986)

Facts: D accidentally drove car onto policeman’s foot and after realising refused to move for a short while-held that D developed necessary mens rea whilst committing an actus reus.

Question 36

Fagan v Met Police Commissioner (1986)

What does this case demonstrate regarding mens rea?

Answer 36

Demonstrates a ‘continuing act’ that constitutes a coincidence of actus reus and mens rea.

Facts: D accidentally drove car onto policeman’s foot and after realising refused to move for a short while-held that D developed necessary mens rea whilst committing an actus reus.

Question 37

Where does the definition of foresight of consequence come from?

Answer 37

s8 CJA 1967

Woollin 1998