Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CRIM 201 > ELEMENTS OF OFFENCES - MR > Flashcards

ELEMENTS OF OFFENCES - MR Flashcards

1
Q

What does the phrase “An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty” signify regarding the relationship between actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR)?

A

This phrase signifies that both actus reus and mens rea must occur simultaneously for a person to be considered guilty, emphasizing the importance of both the action and the guilty mind in establishing criminal liability.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Three main types of Mens Rea

A

intention, knowledge and recklessness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

MR can either be

A

expressed, implied or presumed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what is expressed mr

A

Expressed MR occurs when the law clearly states what the mens rea (guilty mind) is, making it easy to identify.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what is implied mr

A

Implied MR refers to situations where the statute doesn’t explicitly mention intent, knowledge, or recklessness, but other words suggest that it is a mens rea offense. For example, in section 306 of the Crimes Act, the term “threaten” implies an intention to influence another person’s mind, indicating that intent is required.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what is presumed mr

A

A presumed MR can be identified when the statute’s wording is neutral, yet the court is willing to infer mens rea as a matter of principle.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is a case example of presumed mr

A

R v Strawbridge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Strawbridge

A

The court held that the severity of the sentence suggested that proving mens rea was necessary, as it was unlikely Parliament intended for someone to face such harsh punishment without establishing intent. Therefore, mens rea must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to prevent significant injustice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

how is mr tested

A

SUBJECTIVELY, from the internal POV of the defendant, what did they intend

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

how is intention defined in statute

A

it isn’t

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what is the ordinary meaning of intent

A

purpose, aim or objective
“intends to”, “means to”, or “willfully”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what are the two types of intention

A

(1) Direct intention and (2) Oblique or indirect intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what is direct intention

A

Direct intention is when you act to achieve a specific outcome. For example, shooting someone with the intent to kill them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is oblique intention

A

Oblique intention is when you have a specific goal but know that achieving it will likely cause harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what is general example if oblique intention

A

Your acting to achieve x but horrible y may also happen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what will the Judge do in regard to the jury with the two types of intention

A

judges will leave the jury to decide without explanation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what are the three English cases on intent any why are they important

A

r v woollen
r v nedrick
r v Moloney

important cases in the development of intention at common law.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

R v Moloney facts

A

Defendant shot his step father during an intoxicated exercise to determine who could load, draw and shot a gun faster.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

R v Moloney issues

A

Did the defendant intent to shot his father and therefore guilty of murder?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v Moloney held

A

No. The defendant is charged for manslaughter.
It was not considered oblique intention. The court held that “foresight of consequence” is a matter of evidence, meaning the jury must decide if intent can be inferred.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what did lord bridge emphasise in R v Moloney

A

Lord Bridge emphasized two points: judges should avoid over-explaining intent to prevent jury confusion, and intent should not be confused with motive, as they are distinct concepts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

R v Nedrick facts

A

Nedrick set light to the house of a women whom he held a grudge and as a result of the fire one of the women’s children died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

R v Nedrick issue

A

Did Nedrick kill with intention?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

R v Nedrick held

A

didnt kill w intention
Sets out the virtual certainty test
The court also confirmed the ruling in Moloney that foresight of consequences is a matter of evidence, not the definition of intent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

what is the virtual certainty test in Hedrick

A

The virtual certainty test is applied in cases where the accused’s actions make the consequence nearly inevitable.

It is mainly used when the accused’s intention is clear from their admitted actions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

R v Woolin facts

A

The defendant lost his temper and threw his three-month-old son on to a hard surface. His son fractured his skull and died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

R v Woolin issues

A

Did Woolin intend to kill his son beyond reasonable doubt?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

R v Woolin held

A

No. Convicted for manslaughter.
The court confirmed that foresight of consequences can be used as evidence for the jury to infer intent. The jury found that the appellant did not intend to kill or seriously harm his son.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

what are the 4 nz cases on intention

A

r v piri
r v went worth
NZP v K
Taylor v R

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

compared to English approach to intention nz

A

takes more robust and broad approach to intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

R v Wentworth facts

A

The defendant, a pharmacist, was supplying drugs in excess to a customer who used them to make homemade heroin. The pharmacist was charged with assisting in the commission of a crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

R v Wentworth issue

A

What does “for the purposes” (of aiding someone) mean, and what is the required mens rea for a secondary party?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

R v Wentworth held

A

Appeal Unsuccessful - Wentworth guilty.
- jury satisfied with foreseeability of virtual certainty so act was also intended
-If a defendant knows their actions will have multiple consequences, they can’t selectively ignore the known outcomes.

34
Q

New Zealand Police v K
fatcs

A

Convicted of contravening a parenting order contrary to statute s 67, by not returning 4th child to mother on time

35
Q

New Zealand Police v K issue

A

The question is whether preventing compliance with a parenting order requires direct intent or if knowing it will likely happen (oblique intention) is sufficient.

36
Q

New Zealand Police v K
held

A

Appeal allowed = defendant convicted.
A defendant who knowingly causes a prohibited outcome is seen as intending that outcome, regardless of their motives. Motive does not matter.

37
Q

Taylor v R facts

A

Appellant attempted murder by stomping on victims head at least 20 times.

38
Q

Taylor v R issue

A

Defendant appeals on the basis of dissatisfaction.

39
Q

Taylor v R held

A

appeal dismissed = guilty of attempted murder

intention to kill can be inferred only if the appellant knew the victim’s death was virtually certain

40
Q

what did the judge in Taylor v r uphold

A

Moloney’s golden rule to not give elaborate direction to jury in regard to intent because it overcomplicates it.

41
Q

r v piri facts

A

D’s tie woman to tree, V dies of hypothermia.

42
Q

r v piri issue

A

was the virtual certainty test applicable in NZ?

43
Q

r u piri held

A

if there is a degree of virtual certainty you shall obtain that intention.

44
Q

how is knowledge identified in the crimes act

A

its not

45
Q

what is knowledge generally then

A

Knowledge requires actual certainty about something or, in some cases, a belief without significant doubt. It is a subjective assessment.

46
Q

what are the three types of knowledge

A

expressed, implied or presumed from legislation

47
Q

Doctrine of Willful Blindness

A

It is not a legal term, but rather a way to demonstrate knowledge and transition from mere suspicion to certainty.

48
Q

R v Crooks facts

A

Crooks received a sum of cash and drank alcohol provided by his flat mate “Bell”. Crooks had reason to believe money and alcohol were stolen but turned a blind eye.

49
Q

R v Crooks issue

A

Did Crooks turn a blind eye because he had knowledge that the money and alcohol were stolen goods and he wanted to remain ignorant

50
Q

r v crooks held

A

Yes = Crooks convicted for having knowledge.
- failure to enquire that is critical, if that failure is due to a fear of what might be true
- ecision not to enquire was fatal to his case because evidence suggests he would have had a belief that the goods were stolen

51
Q

R v Martin facts

A

D convicted of importing 3+kgs of cocaine into NZ in ornamental statues.

52
Q

r v Martin issue

A

whether D knew the drugs were in her luggage.

53
Q

r v Martin held

A

To establish wilful blindness, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had suspicions but intentionally avoided further inquiry to remain ignorant

54
Q

how is reckless defined in statute

A

Not defined by statute

55
Q

how is recklessness generally known

A

conscious running of an unjustified risk

56
Q

how is every other aspect of recklessness other than risk assessed

A

very other aspect of recklessness is a subjective test

57
Q

Where the risk is stated in legislation to be “likely” or “probable” the COA had interpreted those words to mean

A

the risk must be ‘real’, ‘substantial’ or something that ‘could well happen’.

58
Q

explain the tree of mr

A
  1. direct intention or knowledge
  2. oblique intent/belief
  3. subjective recklessness
  4. objective recklessness (risk)
    negligence (obg
59
Q

Recklessness applies to both type of crimes which are

A

conduct and result crimes

60
Q

R v G

A

Two boys started a fire in a backyard and let it spread to adjoining buildings, caused 1million pounds in damage

61
Q

R v G

A

Overturned the objective test
- The 11 and 12 year old did not have reasonable foresight that the fire would spread to the extent it did.

62
Q

R v Harney facts

A

Defendant (18) killed another young man but stabbing him in the abdomen in a street brawl

63
Q

R v Harney issue

A

Appeal on the basis of misdirection of jury

64
Q

R v Harney held

A

Appeal dismissed = convicted of murder.
Recklessness occurs when a person consciously disregards an obvious risk. In this case, the defendant knowingly chose to use a knife despite being warned about the serious danger.

65
Q

R v Tipple facts

A

The appellant supervised a shooting party near a busy road when a bullet hit two complainants’ car just meters away. He argued the bullet must have ricocheted and claimed he was unaware this could happen.

66
Q

R v Tipple issue

A

Did Tipple have knowledge of the risk?

67
Q

R v Tipple held

A

jury held yes - Appeal dismissed.
Because Tipple set up the target on the ground showed that he foresaw that there is a risk to people on the road if targets were positioned differently

68
Q

R v Hay FACTS

A

While standing in a petrol puddle, the defendant used an electric grinder that sparked, igniting the petrol and burning down the building. He claimed he angled the grinder away from the petrol to reduce the risk.

69
Q

R v Hay ISSUE

A

The case examines whether a defendant can be considered reckless if they acknowledge a risk and attempt to minimize it.

70
Q

R v Hay HELD

A

defendant was not reckless as subjectively the risk was gone

to be negligent is not to be reckless

71
Q

Cameron v R facts

A

The defendant and others were found guilty of importing, selling, having possession for sale the class C drug MDA (valued at $36 million).

72
Q

Cameron v R issue

A

how the court should read MR into the offence and what MR should it be.

73
Q

Cameron v R held

A

They chose recklessness as the required mens rea to facilitate prosecution, as it is easier to prove than knowledge.

74
Q

D’Almeida v Auckland City Council facst

A

Defendant was speeding and charged with dangerous and reckless use of motor vehicle.

75
Q

D’Almeida v Auckland City Council issue

A

Appeal that the driving was not reckless.

76
Q

D’Almeida v Auckland City Council

A

Appeal allowed = Conviction for reckless driving set aside (conviction for dangerous driving remained).

  • defendants driving was dangerous, it was not reckless because the driver did not subjectively foresee the risk it herself.
77
Q

R v Jones facts

A

jones was towing a digger which protruded at a right angle colliding with an oncoming car and killing the driver. Charged will reckless use of motor vehicle.

78
Q

R v Jones issue

A

Was Jones aware that the arm of the boom (digger) had come out at a right angle?

79
Q

R v Jones held

A

Jury dismissed case.
Proof that Jones had actual knowledge that arm had come out was not satisfied.

Although dangerous driving does not require a subjective knowledge of risk, reckless driving does.

80
Q

heiehi v police facts

A

h shot down a drone

81
Q

heiehi v police held

A

The court ruled that he did not have a conscious appreciation of the risk at the time of firing the shots. realised after the fact that his actions were dangerous

Consequently, the conviction was overturned, and a retrial was deemed unnecessary

CRIM 201 (41 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions