Additional Principles Flashcards
In Fagan v MPC, what principle allowed the court to find criminal liability when mens rea formed after the actus reus had started?
A. Transferred malice
B. Mistake of fact
C. One transaction principle
D. Continuing act theory
D. Continuing act theory
Explanation: The battery was ongoing when D refused to move the car. Mens rea formed during the continuing actus reus.
In Thabo Meli, why was the defendant guilty of murder even though the victim died later from exposure?
A. The court transferred the malice
B. The actus reus was considered continuing
C. The defendant had a lawful excuse
D. The mens rea existed at some point during a single criminal sequence
D. The mens rea existed at some point during a single criminal sequence
Explanation: The court treated the acts as part of one continuous event, allowing the earlier mens rea to apply.
Which statement best describes when transferred malice applies?
A. When actus reus is transferred between locations
B. When the defendant changes their mind before the act
C. When the mens rea and actus reus relate to the same type of offence
D. When the offence is committed in self-defence
C. When the mens rea and actus reus relate to the same type of offence
Explanation: Transferred malice only applies when both the intended and actual harm fall under the same legal category (e.g. person-to-person).
Why did transferred malice fail in R v Pembliton?
A. The victim died before the defendant acted
B. The defendant had no mens rea
C. The intention to harm a person could not transfer to property damage
D. The offence required recklessness, not intention
C. The intention to harm a person could not transfer to property damage
Explanation: Transferred malice does not apply between different types of offence. Mens rea for personal injury could not transfer to criminal damage.
Which statement about ignorance of the law is correct?
A. It is a valid defence if the law was newly passed
B. It is no defence under any circumstances
C. It is only accepted where D had no opportunity to learn the law
D. It is a defence if the mistake was honest and reasonable
B. It is no defence under any circumstances
Explanation: The rule is absolute: ignorance of the law is no excuse, as confirmed in R v Bailey.
If a defendant takes property they mistakenly believe is theirs, what is the legal effect?
A. They are guilty if the belief is unreasonable
B. They may not be guilty because the mistake negates mens rea
C. They are guilty unless they can prove ownership
D. They can only be excused if they return the item
B. They may not be guilty because the mistake negates mens rea
Explanation: A genuine mistake of fact, even if unreasonable, can prevent the required intention or recklessness.
If it’s unclear which of two harmful acts caused death, and both could have, what applies?
A. A conviction can still succeed without proving the precise fatal act
B. The prosecution must prove which act was fatal
C. D cannot be convicted unless both acts were planned
D. D is guilty only if they intended both acts
A. A conviction can still succeed without proving the precise fatal act
Explanation: As in AG’s Ref (No 4 of 1980), where both acts could individually cause death, exact causation is not required.
In R v Le Brun, why was the defendant’s later accidental act still part of the offence?
A. Because it was part of a continuing attempt to cover up the unlawful act
B. Because his initial act legally transferred malice
C. Because his actions were not criminal
D. Because the victim had not yet died
A. Because it was part of a continuing attempt to cover up the unlawful act
Explanation: The initial assault and the subsequent fatal drop were treated as one continuous transaction for liability.
