ELEMENTS OF OFFENCES - MR Flashcards
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)?
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.
Three main types of Mens Rea
intention, knowledge and recklessness
MR can either be
expressed, implied or presumed.
what is expressed mr
Expressed MR occurs when the law clearly states what the mens rea (guilty mind) is, making it easy to identify.
what is implied mr
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.
what is presumed mr
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.
what is a case example of presumed mr
R v Strawbridge
R v Strawbridge
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 is mr tested
SUBJECTIVELY, from the internal POV of the defendant, what did they intend
how is intention defined in statute
it isn’t
what is the ordinary meaning of intent
purpose, aim or objective
“intends to”, “means to”, or “willfully”
what are the two types of intention
(1) Direct intention and (2) Oblique or indirect intention
what is direct intention
Direct intention is when you act to achieve a specific outcome. For example, shooting someone with the intent to kill them.
what is oblique intention
Oblique intention is when you have a specific goal but know that achieving it will likely cause harm.
what is general example if oblique intention
Your acting to achieve x but horrible y may also happen
what will the Judge do in regard to the jury with the two types of intention
judges will leave the jury to decide without explanation.
what are the three English cases on intent any why are they important
r v woollen
r v nedrick
r v Moloney
important cases in the development of intention at common law.
R v Moloney facts
Defendant shot his step father during an intoxicated exercise to determine who could load, draw and shot a gun faster.
R v Moloney issues
Did the defendant intent to shot his father and therefore guilty of murder?
R v Moloney held
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.
what did lord bridge emphasise in R v Moloney
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
R v Nedrick facts
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.
R v Nedrick issue
Did Nedrick kill with intention?
R v Nedrick held
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.
what is the virtual certainty test in Hedrick
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.
R v Woolin facts
The defendant lost his temper and threw his three-month-old son on to a hard surface. His son fractured his skull and died.
R v Woolin issues
Did Woolin intend to kill his son beyond reasonable doubt?
R v Woolin held
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.
what are the 4 nz cases on intention
r v piri
r v went worth
NZP v K
Taylor v R
compared to English approach to intention nz
takes more robust and broad approach to intention
R v Wentworth facts
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.
R v Wentworth issue
What does “for the purposes” (of aiding someone) mean, and what is the required mens rea for a secondary party?
R v Wentworth held
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.
New Zealand Police v K
fatcs
Convicted of contravening a parenting order contrary to statute s 67, by not returning 4th child to mother on time
New Zealand Police v K issue
The question is whether preventing compliance with a parenting order requires direct intent or if knowing it will likely happen (oblique intention) is sufficient.
New Zealand Police v K
held
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.
Taylor v R facts
Appellant attempted murder by stomping on victims head at least 20 times.
Taylor v R issue
Defendant appeals on the basis of dissatisfaction.
Taylor v R held
appeal dismissed = guilty of attempted murder
intention to kill can be inferred only if the appellant knew the victim’s death was virtually certain
what did the judge in Taylor v r uphold
Moloney’s golden rule to not give elaborate direction to jury in regard to intent because it overcomplicates it.
r v piri facts
D’s tie woman to tree, V dies of hypothermia.
r v piri issue
was the virtual certainty test applicable in NZ?
r u piri held
if there is a degree of virtual certainty you shall obtain that intention.
how is knowledge identified in the crimes act
its not
what is knowledge generally then
Knowledge requires actual certainty about something or, in some cases, a belief without significant doubt. It is a subjective assessment.
what are the three types of knowledge
expressed, implied or presumed from legislation
Doctrine of Willful Blindness
It is not a legal term, but rather a way to demonstrate knowledge and transition from mere suspicion to certainty.
R v Crooks facts
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.
R v Crooks issue
Did Crooks turn a blind eye because he had knowledge that the money and alcohol were stolen goods and he wanted to remain ignorant
r v crooks held
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
R v Martin facts
D convicted of importing 3+kgs of cocaine into NZ in ornamental statues.
r v Martin issue
whether D knew the drugs were in her luggage.
r v Martin held
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
how is reckless defined in statute
Not defined by statute
how is recklessness generally known
conscious running of an unjustified risk
how is every other aspect of recklessness other than risk assessed
very other aspect of recklessness is a subjective test
Where the risk is stated in legislation to be “likely” or “probable” the COA had interpreted those words to mean
the risk must be ‘real’, ‘substantial’ or something that ‘could well happen’.
explain the tree of mr
- direct intention or knowledge
- oblique intent/belief
- subjective recklessness
- objective recklessness (risk)
negligence (obg
Recklessness applies to both type of crimes which are
conduct and result crimes
R v G
Two boys started a fire in a backyard and let it spread to adjoining buildings, caused 1million pounds in damage
R v G
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.
R v Harney facts
Defendant (18) killed another young man but stabbing him in the abdomen in a street brawl
R v Harney issue
Appeal on the basis of misdirection of jury
R v Harney held
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.
R v Tipple facts
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.
R v Tipple issue
Did Tipple have knowledge of the risk?
R v Tipple held
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
R v Hay FACTS
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.
R v Hay ISSUE
The case examines whether a defendant can be considered reckless if they acknowledge a risk and attempt to minimize it.
R v Hay HELD
defendant was not reckless as subjectively the risk was gone
to be negligent is not to be reckless
Cameron v R facts
The defendant and others were found guilty of importing, selling, having possession for sale the class C drug MDA (valued at $36 million).
Cameron v R issue
how the court should read MR into the offence and what MR should it be.
Cameron v R held
They chose recklessness as the required mens rea to facilitate prosecution, as it is easier to prove than knowledge.
D’Almeida v Auckland City Council facst
Defendant was speeding and charged with dangerous and reckless use of motor vehicle.
D’Almeida v Auckland City Council issue
Appeal that the driving was not reckless.
D’Almeida v Auckland City Council
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.
R v Jones facts
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.
R v Jones issue
Was Jones aware that the arm of the boom (digger) had come out at a right angle?
R v Jones held
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.
heiehi v police facts
h shot down a drone
heiehi v police held
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
