General Principles

Question 1

Two definitions of intention for mens rea?

Answer 1

1. Direct intent: Aim or purpose

2. Oblique or indirect intent: (i) outcome was virtually certain as a result of D’s acts; and (ii) D realised this

Question 2

Define “malice”

Answer 2

Intention or Recklessness

Question 3

Definition of recklessness in R v G?

Answer 3

1. D was SUBJECTIVELY AWARE of the risk of the prohibited consequence at the time of his acts; and
2. In the circumstances known to D, it was OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE to take that risk, i.e. there was little social utility or benefit in taking it

Question 4

What is the effect of the doctrine of transferred malice? Limits?

Answer 4

Where D intended or was reckless as to harming V, but the actus reus actually harmed V2, then D’s MR against V can be combined with his AR against V2 to create one complete offence.

The AR and the MR must be for the same offenced.

Question 5

Two qualifications to the requirement for AR and MR to coincide?

Answer 5

1. Continuing act - MR at any point of the continuance suffices
2. Series of acts making up one transaction - MR at any time of the transaction suffices

Question 6

4 exceptions to the rule that an omission cannot constitute an actus reus attracting criminal liability? Rationale for the rule?

Answer 6

1. Statutory duty to act
2. Contractual duty to act
3. Special relationship
4. Creating a dangerous situation

Rationale = no duty to prevent harm (R v Smith)

Question 7

Test for factual and legal cause?

Answer 7

1. Factual cause - but for D’s actions, events would not have occurred
2. Legal cause - D’s actions were (i) an operating and substantial cause (ii) without any novus actus interveniens