Attempts: Mens rea

Question 1

What is mens rea in regard to attempts?

Answer 1

-to have the same intention as to what would be required for the full offence
-if the prosecution cannot prove direct intention the D would not be liable for the offence

Question 2

Which cases go with the mens rea of attempt?

Answer 2

• R V Khan and others
• Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1992)

Question 3

R V Whybrow?

-Murder

Answer 3

-tried to electrocute his wife in the bath.
-where the defendant is accused of attempted murder, mens rea to kill is essential.

Question 4

R V Khan?

Answer 4

-reckless as to consent?
-could convict if they intended to have intercourse with her but where reckless to whether she consented.
-identical MR to the offence.

Question 5

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1992)

Answer 5

-It was sufficient to prove D intended to damage property, and was reckless as to whether life would be endangered.
-complete mens rea of arson does not need specific intent to danger life.

Question 6

R V Walker & Hayles

Murder

Answer 6

attempted murder can be committed with the mens rea of oblique intention to kill.

Question 7

R V Pale and Rogers?

Answer 7

‘you need mens rea for all parts of the offence’

Question 8

R V Millard and Vernon?

Answer 8

-recklessness not enough for attempts
-Repetitively pushing on wooden fence.

Question 9

Which cases go with recklessness isn’t sufficient?

Answer 9

-R V Pale and Rogers
-R V Millard and Vernon

Question 10

Which cases ensure direct intention to kill is needed for murder?

Answer 10

-R V Whybrow
-R V Walker & Hayles.