Chapt 1 Mens Rea Flashcards
Two types of intention
Direct intent (result is the aim or purpose)
Oblique/ indirect - result is not aim or purpose but is virtually certain to occur and D foresees that risk and takes it anyway
What is recklessness in criminal law?
Unjustified risk taking
Test for recklessness is subjective
G and Another (2003) kids burning rubbish
Cunningham 1957 original subjective test of recklessness
What is transferred malice?
“The defendants MR is transferred to an unintended victim or target”👍 (easiest quote I think)
Can be applied to intention and recklessness (AR must be the same)
Latimer 1986. Held as the actus Reus was the same but hit the wrong person with his belt
Mitchell 1983 pushes man in queue. Breaks hip of old lady and she dies = unlawful act manslaughter
Must cause the AR for which he has the MR
Pembliton 1874 threw stone at someone and hit window instead. MR could therefore not be transferred
Coincidence of AR and MR
Continued AR
Fagan v met police commissioner 1968. Foot and car. MR after the offence and then he continued to keep car on foot.
Miller 1983 tramp
Thabo Meli 1954 single transaction
Intention to kill. Did not die immediately. D thought he was dead and left him. He then died.
Types of strict liability offences
No MR
Causing pollution and damage to environment
Adulterating food and drink
Sex with a under 13 year old -s5 sexual offences act 2003
Selling food unfit for human consumption
Some road offences ie speeding
Breaching health and safety regs
Breaching planning and building requirements
Misdescribing the quality and price of goods and services
Justifications for strict liability offences
Force people to comply
Minor nature of most means less stigma
Proving fault difficult
Too much time taken to prove MR
Protection of public outweighs usual req for MR
Ie: s5 Sexual Iffences Act 2003 (rape of under 13 year old)
Where are strict liability offences found?
Statute. But p often doesn’t say whether they are or not and courts have to interpret
General presumption of needing MR( ie not strict liability )
Sweet and Parsley 1970- courts generally presume offence is not SL unless strong evidence that it is
Gammon v Attorney General for HK 1985- in regulatory offences or public protection, the presumption of needing MR can be rebutted
SL challenges under HRA as they don’t comply with article 6 of echr. G (2008) sexual offence with child. Conviction upheld- man still guilty
What is the mens rea?
The guilty mind at the time of the offence.
Can include intention or recklessness
Novus interveniens
Break in chain
Refusal
Blaue 1976
Thin skull
Dhaliwal and Blaue
At escape
Roberts 1971 - foreseeability and daftness
Medical treatment
Cheshire 1991/ Jordan 1956
Joint enterprise
Rafferty (Andrew Paul) 2007
