Fundamentals

Question 1

Intention

Answer 1

• Direct intention
• Oblique intention

*Intention is not motive or desire

Question 2

Mens rea

Answer 2

• intention
• recklessness
• knowledge and belief
• dishonesty
• negligence

Question 3

Direct intention

Answer 3

consequence is what D intends to happen
* if the the consequence is D’s purpose, D intends it even if D’s chances of success are slim-subjective test from D’s point of view.
* Motive and desire are irrelevant to the question of whether someone has direct intent.
* R v Moloney- word should be given its ordinary meaning and judges should generally avoid defining the term ‘intention’, beyond explaining that it differs from desire and motive

Question 4

Oblique intention

Answer 4

Consequence is not D’s purpose but a side effect that D accepts as an inevitable or certain accompaniment to D’s direct intention (consequence does not have to be desired)

• murder = jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen event) as a result of D’s action and D appreciated this was the case
• only to be used in rare circumstances when the facts require it and when intention is the only form of MR

2-stage test
1. Obj q: was the consequence a virtual certainty as a result of D’s conduct?
2. Subj q: did D realise that the consequence was a virtual certainty?

Question 5

Recklessness

Answer 5

When a person does not intend to cause a harmful result but sees a risk of harm and goes ahead anyway.
* Risk must be unjustifiable, no social utility or value to the activity, against the likelihood and amount of harm that might happen.
* Slightest possibility of harm is enough to prove recklessness.
* High degree of social utility-only a very high degree of probability of grave harm that outweighs the social utility will suffice to condemn it as reckless

Question 6

Test for recklessness

Answer 6

o Subj q - is D aware of the existence of a risk?
 Risk must be seen by D-if D does not foresee risk, cannot be reckless-this is the case even where risk would have been evident to reasonable person.
o Obj q - does D unreasonably take that risk?

Question 7

what are the 2 theories on coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

Answer 7

• Continuing act theory - D can be guilty of the offence if they form MR for offence at some point during the AR is ongoing
  i.e. D drove on to a police officer’s foot accidentally, when the officer told him to move the car, he refused (battery)-although D did not initially have MR when he applied force, he did when he failed to move the car.
• One transaction principle - court categorises a series of acts which could be AR making it into 1 transaction and enough for D to have MR at some point during the transaction
  i.e. V was struck numerous times by several men who intended to kill him, when they thought he was dead, his body was rolled off a cliff-he was not dead and died from exposure at the bottom of the cliff-men had MR for murder at time of beating but AR not complete-when they rolled body off cliff, this killed V but they did not intend to kill as they thought he was already dead-this formed one transaction and it was enough that MR existed at some point during the transaction