Actus reus and Mens rea

Question 1

Q: What is intent?

Answer 1

If D intends something to happen, he/she wishes to bring about a consequence.

Question 2

Q: What is malice?

Answer 2

Requires either the actual intention to cause the relevant harm or at least foresight of the risk of causing some harm (though not the extent of the harm) to a person

Question 3

Q: How can a jury infer intent?

Answer 3

1. Case Law
2. s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967- foresight of probability

Question 4

Q: What must a jury consider for the foresight of probability?

Answer 4

1. At the time of the criminal act was there a probability of a consequence?
2. The greater the probability, the more likely it is that the defendant foresaw that consequence.
3. If the defendant foresaw that consequence, the more likely it is that the defendant intended it to happen

Question 5

Q: What does s8 state?

Answer 5

States that a court/jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence:
(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances

Question 6

Q: What is the link between murder and virtual certainty of death?

Answer 6

R v Wollin [1999]- D threw 3-month baby down onto a hard surface in a fit of rage, the jury might have inferred both that death/serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty from the defendant’s actions and that he must have appreciated that to be the case; they should therefore have been directed by the trial judge accordingly

Question 7

Q: What are offences of specific intent? X2 example offences

Answer 7

Crimes of specific intent are only committed where D is shown to have had a particular intention to bring about a specific consequence at the time of the criminal act
- Murder
- Burglary with intent
Without the intent, the offence does not exist

Question 8

Q: What are offences of basic intent? X2 example offences

Answer 8

Other criminal offences require no further proof of anything other than basic intention to bring about the given circumstances
- Maliciously wounding
- GBH s20
Basic intent- recklessness will often be enough to satisfy the mental element

Question 9

Q: What is recklessness?

Answer 9

Centred on taking unjustifiable risk, a person may not intend to cause a particular harm but may take an unjustifiable risk of causing it
Subjective- belief that the suspect himself personally held about something, his genuine and honest belief.
Objective- belief that other people/society in general hold about something

Question 10

Q: What is the current standard test for recklessness?

Answer 10

SUBJECTIVE! Cunningham recklessness- requires the proof of the taking of an unjustified risk and proof that D was aware of the existence of the unjustifiable risk. See the risk and deliberately take it.
Cunningham- D ripped the gas meter off the wall in a cellar in an empty house to steal money from it. He left gas seeping out from the broken pipes and someone in the next-door house inhaled the gas. Cunningham would have been reckless if he would have been aware that when he broke off the gas meter/left broken pipe with gas seeping out that it might be inhaled by someone. Not enough that the risk would have been obvious to any reasonable person. It had to be foreseen by D himself!

Question 11

Q: What are the 2 categories of intoxication?

Answer 11

1. Voluntary (caused by the defendant themselves)
2. Involuntary (defendant is not responsible for that condition)

Question 12

Q: When can intoxication be used as a defence?

Answer 12

Voluntary intoxication can be raised for a specific intent offence but NOT basic
Involuntary intoxication can be raised for both specific and basic intent
DPP v Majewski 1977- individual who is voluntarily intoxicated would not be able to say this if accused of an offence of basic intent, as the courts have accepted D is still capable of forming basic intent even when completely inebriated

Question 13

Q: What if D misjudges the strength/amount of intoxicants they have voluntarily taken?

Answer 13

This will not be regarded as involuntary intoxication- R v Allen [1988]

Question 14

Q: What if D is shown to have formed the required MR necessary for the offence whilst intoxicated?

Answer 14

Intoxication (voluntary or involuntary) will not be available as a drunken intent is still an ‘intent’- R v Kingston [1995]

Question 15

Q: What can the sources of intoxication be?

Answer 15

Drink of drugs- court will consider known effects of the drug in deciding whether D had formed the required MR- characteristics of the drugs will be relevant in determining whether D behaved recklessly in taking them

Question 16

Q: What is mistaken belief?

Answer 16

Where D forms a ‘mistaken belief’ based on the fact that he/she is intoxicated, that belief may sometimes be raised as a defence
Jaggard v Dickinson 1981- D mistakenly believed the property being damaged was his own. Mistaken belief arose from D’s intoxicated state- the court accepted the defence under s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971
R v O’Grady 1987- courts have refused to accept defences of mistaken, drunken belief where D charged with murder could not rely on a mistake induced by his own voluntary intoxication and claim ‘self-defence’

Question 17

Q: What about cases involving dutch courage?

Answer 17

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963- If D becomes intoxicated to gain false courage to go and commit a crime, they will not be able to claim a defence of intoxication even if the crime is one of specific intent. This is because they have already formed the intent required and the intoxication is merely a means of plucking up ‘Dutch’ courage to carry it out

Question 18

Q: What is negligence?

Answer 18

Focuses on the consequences of D’s conduct rather than demanding proof of a particular state of mind at the time. D must be shown to have acted in a way that runs contrary to the expectations of the reasonable person

Question 19

Q: What is strict liability?

Answer 19

There is little to prove beyond the act itself. In most cases, there is no need to prove MR in relation to one aspect of the behaviour. Situations where strict liability is imposed are usually to enforce statutory regulation (e.g. road traffic offences), particularly where there is some social danger or concern presented by the proscribed behaviour
PP v H 1997- stated that the offence of driving with excess alcohol (s5) did not require proof of any MR.