Booklet 3 - Mens rea and strict liability

Question 1

What is mens rea?

Answer 1

The guilty mind - the thinking part of the crime

Their intention/motive

Question 2

What are the 5 levels of mens rea? Name them from 1-5 (1 being the most culpable)

Answer 2

1. Intention
2. Recklessness
3. Gross negligence
4. Negligence
5. Strict liabilty

Question 3

What is specific/oblique intention?

Answer 3

The result which occurred was the defendant’s aim/purpose

Question 4

Name and describe the case that defined specific intention.

Answer 4

• Mohan (1975)
• police officer asked a driver to slow down by giving him a signal
• he did not and then sped at the police officer

Question 5

What is oblique/indirect intention?

Answer 5

Where the defendant intended one consequence to happen, however, another different outcome occurs.

The consequence is not your aim, but is ‘virtually certain’ to happen due to your actions?

Question 6

Name and describe the case that indirect intention lies within.

Answer 6

• Woolin (1998)
• Defendant threw his 3 month old to the ground in frustration when he would not stop crying.
• The baby died due to this

Whilst the defendant did not intend to kill his child or harm him, the defendant foresaw a risk of causing serious harm due to his actions.

Question 7

What 2 questions must the jury consider as evidence of intent?

Answer 7

1. ) Was the death or serious injury of virtual certainty?
2. ) Did the defendant realise this?

If yes to both, then the jury are entitled to find intention as this is evidence of foresight of consequences.

Question 8

What is subjective recklessness?

Answer 8

The recklessness that is used in law

• looking at what the defendant thought (e.g. did they realise the risk and takes it)

Question 9

What is objective recklessness?

Answer 9

Looking at the perspective of a reasonable man

Question 10

Name and describe the case that subjective recklessness is based on.

Answer 10

• Cunningham (1957)
• Tore gas meter off the wall to steal money
• gas leaked from the meter and affected a woman in the next door house
• was not guilty as he did not realise a risk was involved

Question 11

In 1982, what case overruled subjective recklessness to turn it objective?

Answer 11

• Caldwell
• the risk that he created was obvious to that of a reasonable man, and so the conviction was upheld,
  (Started a fire in a previous workplace due to a grudge with his previous employer whilst intoxicated)

Question 12

What case overruled objective recklessness back to subjective recklessness in 2003?

Answer 12

R v Gemmell and Richards

• Said Caldwell test was wrong and the defendant must have realised a risk in their actions.

Question 13

What is transferred malice?

Answer 13

Where the mens rea that the defendant possesses can be transferred from their intended victim to the actual victim

Question 14

Name and describe the case that demonstrates transferred malice (begins with L)

Answer 14

• Latimer (1886)
• Defendant aimed to strike someone with his belt after being hit.
• Belt bounced off of the intended victim and hit a woman in the face
• Guilty of assault against the woman

Question 15

Name and describe the case that demonstrates that malice can only be transferred if the crimes are similar (begins with P)

Answer 15

• Pembliton (1874)
• Defendant threw a stone intending to hit people whom he had been fighting with
• The stone hit a window and broke it
• Not guilty as the intention to hit people could not be transferred to the window

Question 16

Why do you think we need the transferred malice rule?

Answer 16

• Victim still gets justice

- Defendant still has mens rea and actus reus

Question 17

What is the coincidence rule?

Answer 17

Where both the actus reus and mens rea have to be present at the same time.

Question 18

Name and describe the case where mens rea can develop over the course of the actus reus.

Answer 18

• Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969
• Fagan was told by an officer to park by a kerb, and in doing this, drove on the officer’s foot.
• Initially, he had not realised he had done this, but when it was pointed out to him, he refused to move until he eventually did.
• The case shows that mens rea can develop over the .course of the actus reus

Question 19

Name and describe the case where mens rea can overlap at some point with the actus reus.

Answer 19

• Thabo Meli 1954
• Defendants beat a victim over the head, and when thinking he was dead, threw him off a cliff
• The victim actually was not, and died from the fall and exposure
• Argument that at the time of the actus reus, the mens rea was no longer present
• Actions could not be seen as separate, as it as part of a plan and the actus reus and mens rea would have overlapped during the course of events.

Question 20

What is strict liability?

Answer 20

A category of offences in which the mens rea is not required and the actus reus was voluntary

Question 21

What are strict liability offences usually?

Answer 21

• Statute law created by Parliament

- Usually regulatory offences

Question 22

What 3 existing common law strict liability offences are there?

Answer 22

• Public nuisance
• Criminal libel
• Outraging public decency

Question 23

Name and describe the case that demonstrated common law strict liability.

Answer 23

• Gibson and Sylveire 1991
• Gibson created an art exhibit of a model head with earrings made up of freeze-dried human fetuses (real)
• Both men convicted of outraging public decency, as mens rea was not required

Question 24

What is the problem with most statutes?

What presumption must they make?

Answer 24

• They do not clearly state if an offence is one of strict liability, and so the court must look at multiple things.
• The court presumes that mens rea is required, and can displace that presumption when the gammon principles are satisfied.

Question 25

What are the four factors (gammon principles) before someone can be guilty of a strict liability offence?

Answer 25

1. Is it a regulatory offence or a true crime?
2. Is it an area of social/public concern?
3. Does the wording of the act indicate strict liability?
4. Does the offence help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance (through strict liability?

Question 26

Name 2 cases that fit under factor 1 of the gammon principles.

Answer 26

• B v DPP

- Sweet v Parsley

Question 27

Describe the case of Sweet v Parsley.

Answer 27

• Defendant let out a property to students
• Police later found cannabis at the house
• Defendant charged with management of premises used for smoking cannabis
• Unaware that this was happening
• Conviction quashed as it is a true crime

Question 28

Describe the case of B v DPP.

Answer 28

• Defendant charged with a sexual offence of inciting a child under 14 to commit indecency acts
• Had asked a 13 year old girl to perform oral, believing that she was 14 (14 himself)
• Conviction quashed as it is a true crime and therefore requires mens rea

Question 29

Name 3 cases that fit under factor 2.

Answer 29

• Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah
• Alphacell v Woodward
• Callow V Tillstone

Question 30

Describe the case of Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah

Answer 30

• Employee sold a lottery ticket to someone under the age of 16
• Despite the owners of the shop taking all precautions they could (trained staff and had posters up), they were still convicted as it was a matter of public concern and upholding standards (so strict liability)

Question 31

Describe the case of Alphacell v Woodward

Answer 31

• Company polluted rivers

- Social concern, and so therefore strict liability offence

Question 32

Name a case that comes under factor 3.

Answer 32

• Storkwain

Question 33

Describe the case of Stoikwain

Answer 33

• Defendant supplies medicine on forged prescriptions
• He did not know they were forged
• The relevant section was silent on mens rea, and therefore it was seen that it was meant to be strict liability
• He was guilty of the offence

Question 34

What cases fit under factor 4?

Answer 34

• Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah
• Callow v Tillstone
• Alphacell v Woodward (though not the best example)

Question 35

Describe the case of Callow v Tillstone

Answer 35

• Butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for sale/to eat
• Vet assured him it was, and so the butcher put it up for sale
• It was actually unfit, and due to being a strict liability offence, the butcher was guilty of exposing unsound meat for sale
• Regulatory, so keeps standards upheld
• An area of public concern.

Question 36

Name 3 or 4 advantages of strict liability.

Answer 36

1. Protects the public from dangerous situations (e.g. Alphacell v Woodward)
2. Keeps the standards upheld and so it is equal to all (LBC v Shah)
3. Easier to enforce (quicker)
4. Prevents people from getting away with the crimes, as the mens rea is not required

Question 37

Name 3 or 4 disadvantages of strict liability.

Answer 37

1. People who are not blame-worthy can be found guilty and punished (e.g. Callow v Tillstone)
2. If the wording of the act is not clear, then it can be misinterpreted (inconsistency and unjust)
3. Big companies are harder to convict (Facebook)
4. Individual rights (does not take the circumstances of the defendant in)