Chapter 5: mens rea - intention

Question 1

What are the 4 categories of mens rea

Answer 1

• Intention
• Recklessness
• Gross negligence
• Knowledge

Question 2

What are the 3 types of intent

Answer 2

1. Basic intent
2. Oblique intent
3. Foreseeability of risk

Question 3

What is direct intent

Answer 3

Direct intent is when the when the defendant may want to achieve a particular desire, aim or purpose and does it in order to achieve that desire, aim or purpose

• Direct intent does not need motive to prove guilty

Question 4

What is the difference between motive and intention

make it clear that they are NOT the same thing

Answer 4

Motive - the reason behind doing something

• Motive can help the jury arrive at its decision
• A benevolent purpose (good) or malevolent purspose (bad) is taken into account to decide the gravity of the sentencing

Intention - the deliberate action to bring about the prohibited consequence

• Matter decided by the jury

Question 5

Although direct intent doesn’t need motive, what is it used for

Answer 5

Court may place reliance of the issue of the motive in order to decide the outcome of the case

Question 6

Chandler v DPP [1964]

case to prove direct intent

Answer 6

Held: HOL held that their motives of a planned sit-in military airfield in the interest of the state and of the whole of UK population were irrelevant as they had committed an offence solely by appraoching the airfield which is prohibnited place under Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911

(did not matter if there was motive or not)

Question 7

What is the exception for doctors regardiang direct intent

Answer 7

If the doctor whose primary purpose or motive is to relieve pain by giving medication to the patient, where he knows will incidentally hasten the patient’s death does not have mens rea for murder

Question 8

What are the 2 cases that judges made wrong judgement for direct intent

Answer 8

1. Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Area health Authority [1986] AC 112
2. R v Steane

Question 9

What was wrongly decided in Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Area Health Authority

Answer 9

Wrong: Some judges had the opinion that the doctor, who knew giving prescription contraceptive to a girl (16 yo) would encourage other to have sexual intercouse with her, would not be guilty, cause his “intention was to protect the girl”

Right: He was guilty cause of the intent that he knew that it would result in such consequence

Question 10

What was wrongly decided in R v Steane

Answer 10

Wrong: Court held that the defendant did not have an intention to assist the enemy when broadcacsting he would give them information in order to save his family and himself from the horrors of the concentration camp during WW2

Right: Although his motive may be to save his family; there was intent to give information and assist the enemy

Only the intent to bring out the end result is what matters in direct intent crime

Question 11

What is abet

Answer 11

To encourage or assist one in conducting a crime

Question 12

What is entrapment

Answer 12

process where the defendant is assited or incited to committ a crime in order to find the evidence against the defendant (to blend in)

Question 13

What is oblique intent

Answer 13

When defendant does not desire the consequence, but foresees that the consequence is virtually certain to result (foreseability of risk)

(need) Secondary purpose > Primary purpose

Question 14

What is definition of intention from Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (41st Edition)

Answer 14

“(1) A man intends a consequence when he desires the consequence to happen whether or not he foresees it will probably happen; (2) or He forsees that it will probably happen whether he desires it or not.”

1) talks about direct intent
2) talks about oblique intent (foreseeability of risk)

Question 15

What is the idea of foreseeability of risk when deciding conviction

Answer 15

Foreseeability has 2 outcomes depending on the foreseeable risk that in the consequence of the act defendant should have known

1) High risk = intent
2) Low risk = recklessness

Question 16

DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290

Answer 16

Held: HOL held whether the act that caused grievous bodily harm was the natural and probable result therefore equating to “natural and probable” as to mean intention

1) primary purpose = to escape
2) secondary purpose = What is the probability, whether or not he needed to kill the policeman to escape

Question 17

What are the 2 elements to prove an oblique intent according to the case of DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290

Answer 17

1. It equated/equivalent to intent with natural and probable consequence of the action
2. it had created an objective test

Question 18

Criminal Justice Act 1967, Section 8

happened after DPP v Smith

important

Answer 18

” A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence: (shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw as a result of his actions by reason only of it being a natural and probable consequence of these actions); (but shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances).”

Only infer if there is enough evidence provided (Ms Puvan’s bucket analogy)

This rule clearly overruled DPP v Smith

Question 19

DPP v Hyam

Answer 19

Defendant would be guilty for mens rea for murder if the it was proved that defendant
1) intended to kill; or foresaw killing
2) intended to cause grievous bodily harm or; foresaw grievous bodily harm

Question 20

What is the takeaway from R v Maloney

Answer 20

1. The mens rea for murder is intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm. This belongs to the substantive law;
2. That mere foresight of the probable consequence is not equivalent to intention
3. That foresight is an issue of the law of evidence and not substantive law

What is the probibility of someone getting hurt/killed?

Question 21

What would a judge direct the jury if there was suffiencient evidence to observe if the defendant had intention to commit the crime

Answer 21

1. Was death or grievous bodily harm a natural consequence of the accused’s voluntary act?
2. And if so, dod the accused foresee that death or grievous bodily harm would be a natural consequence of his action?

(if there is enough natural consequence/evidence, then it is given to the jury to infer)

Question 22

R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] AC 455

Answer 22

Lord Scarman - Moloney guidelines were misleading. Stated that the if there was greater probability of the consequence happening, means it is more likely to be foreseen, and if the consequence was foreseen the greater probability, then it would be intended

(Greater probability > more likely foreseen > more likely intended)

Amended Maloney

Question 23

R v Woolin [1998]

Answer 23

Facts: Apallent lost temper and threw 3 month old child onto hard surface. Prosecution didn’t contend that the appallent had desire to kill or to cause injury, but rather the intention to cause serious harm

Held: judge summed up and gave the jurt what has become known as the “virtual certainty” direction. That when he threw the child there was a substantial risk that he would cause the child serious injury

Question 24

What are the elements to no direct evidence that the purpose of the defendant was to kill or inflict serious harm to the victim by the Court of Appeal - in order for jury to infer

Answer 24

1. that serious bodily harm was a virtual certain consequence of the defendant’s voluntary act and;
2. that the defedant appreaciated that (liked the thought of it)

Question 25

What is the quote of the 2 elements of a crime’s intention and probability by Lord Steyn

Answer 25

“Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreaciated that such was the case.”