Chapter 14- Mens Rea Flashcards
What happened in R v Clarke, and what area of law does it apply to?
-Woman put items in her bag for trolley before paying for them
-Able to show she suffered from absentmindedness due to depression
-Therefore lacked mens rea for theft and was aquitted
(Mens rea and fault)
What happened in Nedrick and what does it apply to?
-D had grudge against a women
-He poured paraffin through the letter box of her house and set it alight
-A child died in the fire
-D was convicted of murder but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and substituted it to manslaughter
(Foresight of consequences)
What happened in Woollin and what does it apply to?
-D threw his 3 month baby towards the pram against a wall 3 feet away
-The baby suffered head injuries and died
-Court ruled that the consequence must have been a virtual certainty and the defendant must have realised this
-Where the jury was satisfied on both the 2 points, then there was evidence on which the jury could find intention
(foresight of consequences)
What happened in Matthews and Alleyne, and what does it apply to?
-Ds dropped victim from a bridge into the middle of a deep river
-Victim told them that he couldn’t swim
-They watched him dog paddle to the banks but left before seeing if he reached the side
-The victim drowned
-Judge directed jury that intention could be proved either by direct intention to kill or d’s appreciation that V’s death was a virtual certainty
-Court of Appeal said judge was wrong to say that an appreciation of a virtual certainty constituted intention
-But upheld the conviction
(Problems with the decision of Woollin)
What happened in Cunningham and what does it apply to?
-D tore gas meter from the wall of an empty house to steal money, causing gas to seep into the house next door where a women was affected
-Cunningham was charged with an offence under s 23 of the Offences against the person Act 1861
-Held that he was not guilty since he didn’t realise the risk of gas escaping into the next-door house and hadn’t intended on causing harm
(Subjective Recklessness)
What happened in R v Prince and what does it apply to?
-D knew girl he took was in fathers possession but believed on reasonable grounds she was 18
-Convicted as he had intention to remove the girl from the possession of her father
-Mens rea was required for this part of the actus reus
-Court held that the knowledge of her age wasn’t required
(Strict liability and mens rea)
What happened in Callow v Tillstone and what does it apply to?
-Butcher asked vet if a sepcific meat was fit for human consumption
-Vet assured him that it was alright to eat
-BUT it was unfit and the butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale
-Because it was a strict liability offence the butcher was guilty even though he had taken reasonable care not ot commit the offence
-The butcher wasn’t at fault in anyway
(No fault)
What happened in Sweet v Parsley and what does it apply to?
-D rented farmhouse to students
-Police found cannabis at the farmhouse and convicted D with ‘being concerned in the management of premises used to smoke cannabis’
-D didn’t know cannabis was being smoked there
-decided that she was not guilty as the court presumed that the offence required mens rea
(Presumption of Mens rea)
What happened in Alphacella Ltd v Woodward and what does it apply to?
-Company charged with causing polluted matter to enter the river when pumps it had installed failed
-s 2 of the Rivers Act 1951
-No evidence that the company knew of the pollution
-offence held by HoL to be 1 of strict liability and the company was found guilty
-As it was of the ‘upmost public importance’ that rivers shouldn’t be polluted
(Quasi-criminal offences)
What happened in B v DPP and what does it apply to?
-15 year old asked 13 year old who he thought was over 14 for a blowjob
-Charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency under s1 Indecency with Children Act 1960
-HoL quashed the convictions as mens rea was required
(Penalty of imprisonment)
What happened in R v Blake and what does it apply to?
-D was a disc jokey who was convicted of using a wireless telegraphy without a licence (Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949)
-defence said he believed he was making a demonstration tape and didn’t know he was transmitting
-Convicted on the basis of strict liability
-Appealed to Court of Appeal but his appeal was dismissed
(Issues of social concern)
What happened in Latimer and what does it apply to?
-D aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub as the man attacked him
-Belt bounced off the man and struck a women in the face
-D was guilty of assaulting the women although he hadn’t meant to hit her
(Transferred Malice)
What happened in Church and what does it apply to?
-D had a fight with a woman and knocked her out
-He tried, unsuccessfully to bring her round
-He thought she was dead so put her in the river
-She drowned
-He was convicted of manslaughter
(Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea)
What happened in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and what does it apply to?
-D was told by police officer to park by a kerb
-In doing so he drove on the policeman’s foot
-Initially D refused to move the car
-When policeman pointed out what had happened, he asked D to move the car several times
-Eventually D did move the car
-D was convicted of assault
-Court of Appeal held that once D knew the car was on the foot he had the required mens rea, with the actus reus also being present
-He could be found guilty
(Continuing act)
What happened in Gammon Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong and what does it relate?
-Appellants had been charged with deviating from building work in a material way from the approved plan
