Criminal Law Flashcards

Question

What is direct intention and give a key case

Answer 1

The defendant intended the specific consequences to occur- it was the defendants aim, purpose or desire R v Mohan 1975 -defendant was told to stop driving by a police officer, he slowed down but at last minute accelerated.

Answer 2

Consequence was not the intended result R v woolin 1998 - d intended to throw his baby into the pram but missed and the baby hit the wall, fractured its skull and died

Answer 3

1. Was the consequence a virtual certainty of defendants actions 2. Did defendant know it was a virtual certainty

Answer 4

Defendant knows there’s a risk of consequence from his actions however continued with his actions nonetheless R v Cunningham 1957 -d broke into gas meter intending to steal money, gas seeped into neighbouring houses and harmed them

Answer 5

The principle of transferred maile applied to cases where a defendant commits the actus reus of a criminal offence against a victim that was not their intended victim. The principle operates to move the mens rea from the intended victim

Answer 6

1. Where the defendant commits an offence and no harm comes to the intended victim but an unintended victim is harmed 2. Where an additional victim is harmed by the actions of the defendant

Answer 7

R v Mitchell (1983) The defendant tried to jump the queue at a Post Office. An elderly man took issue with this and challenged him. The defendant pushed him (intended victim. The man fell Jack onto others in the queue includina an elderly lady (unintended victim who tell and broke her leg. She later died. The defendant was found quilty of manslaughter Legal principle: There was is requirement that the unlawful act be directed at the intended victim. R v gnango 2011 R v Latimer (1886) D hit a man in the pub with a belt. The belt bounce off the man and hit a woman in the face. Guilty Legal principle: D was guilty of assault to the woman despite intending no harm to her. Transfer of malice. R v Pembliton (1874) R was having a fight and threw a stone at the group of people he was fighting with. The stone missed them and broke a window. The intention to hit people could not be transferred to the window.

Answer 8

The rule that judges use when the AR and MR appear not to occur at the same time • If judges didn't use the coincidence rule the D would not be guilty • The judge is looking for a point when they did coincide • Continuing act (refers to Actus Reus) • Series of events (single transaction principle) (refers to mens rea

Answer 9

A defendant may commit an actus reus of an offence without realising. Subsequently they realise and continue regardless. A defendant in theory could claim that by the time the mens rea kicked in the actus reus had stopped a therefore isn't guilty of an offence. This is where the continuing act comes into play. The principle states that the actus reus isn't complete when it is undertaken but can continue. At some point the mens rea and actus reus will meet (coincide) and this establishes a guilty outcome.

Answer 10

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) Mr Fagan accidentally drove his car onto a policeman's foot. When the policeman asked him to move his car, he refused and switched off the engine. He did later reverse.

Answer 11

do not require a mens rea - they are complete when the defendant commits the actus reus. This means that a defendant who did not intend to commit such a crime is still guilty of it no matter how careful he has tried to be. Almost all strict liability offences are statutory in origin.

Answer 12

Callow v Tillstone (1900) Facts: The defendant was a butcher who asked a vet to check whether or not a carcass was fit for human consumption. The vet said it was fit for sale but he had been negligent and in fact, the meat was unfit. The supply of medicines is carefully regulated. It is an offence under s58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 that you can't provide certain drugs without a prescription. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986) D was a pharmacist who was given forged prescriptions. He had no idea they were fakes. Guilty Legal principle: the actus reus supply drugs without a rescription was met voluntarily by D.

Answer 13

With absolute liability the offence requires no MR and there is no need to prove that D's AR was voluntary. Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) Facts: Police were called to removed an intoxicated defendant from hospital. The police placed the defendant outside the hospital and charged him with being drunk on the highway. Guilty Legal principle: Whilst the defendant wasn't voluntarily on the highway (the police put him there). The offence requires proof of drunkeness on a highway as a fact and nothing more. R v Larsonneur (1933) Facts: D had been ordered to leave the UK. She went to Ireland but was arrested there and brought back to the UK. Guilty Legal principle: Aliens Order 1920 set out that anyone asked to leave and found in the UK was guilty. Alien is a very old fashioned term.

Answer 14

DPP v Collins (2006) Facts: The defendant left messages on his MPs answer phone using racist language. He was charged under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003 of 'intentionally sending a grossly offensive message'. Held: The House of Lords held that the defendant only needed to intend to send the message. The fact that it was 'grossly offensive' was strict liability. It did not matter whether the defendant intended the message to be grossly offensive Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) Facts: The defendant was a landlord who was accused of an offence under the Licensing Act when he sold alcohol to someone who was already drunk. The defendant did not know that the person was drunk. Held: It was held to be a strict liability offence. Other parts of the statute included mens rea words but the relevant section did not. The courts therefore presumed that Parliament had not required the defendant to possess mens rea before he could be convicted. B v DPP (2000) Facts: The 15 year old defendant was charged under s.1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 of 'inciting a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of gross indecency. The defendant asked a 13 year old girl to perform oral sex on him. The defendant said he thought the girl was older. Held: Considering the serious nature of this offence, the House of Lords held that the crime required a mens rea and quashed his conviction. The Indecency with Children Act 1960 has since been re-drafted in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Many of the sections in the new Act remain strict liability.

Answer 15

If the offence is not one where a moral issue may be a stake, then the courts are more willing to dispense with the need for a mens rea. Such offences include food regulations where the penalties are small and the removal of the requirement to prove mens rea makes them much easier to enforce.

Answer 16

Smedleys v Breed (1974) Facts: The defendants were convicted when a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas produced in their factory. They had taken all reasonable precautions to avoid contamination. Held: Despite this, the House of Lords upheld their conviction. Harrow LBC v Shah (1999) Facts: A shop owner was held liable when an employee sold a lottery ticket to someone under 16. Held: The assistant had reasonably thought the customer to be above the age limit but despite this, the conviction stood. R v Bosher (1973) Facts: The defendant was convicted of driving whilst disqualified. His defence was that he believed his disqualification had ended especially in light of the fact that his licence had been sent back to him. Held: Despite his reasonable belief, he was convicted.