Mens Rea

Question 1

True Intention’s main case?

Answer 1

Cunliffe- “would D feel they had failed if the outcome had not occurred.

Question 2

How many cases relevant to Oblique Intention? Names?

Answer 2

Hyam, Moloney, Nedrick, Wentworth

Question 3

Hyam v DDP [1975] AC 55 Ratio?

Answer 3

Hyam: (UK)- HIGHLY PROABABLE that D knew the act would result in the death/GBH

Question 4

R v Moloney 1985 [AC] Ratio?

Answer 4

Moloney: (UK)[Son discharges gun killing father]-foresight was LITTLE SHORT OF OVERHWELMING that the act result in the outcome

Question 5

R v Nedrick (1986) Ratio?

Answer 5

Nedrick: (UK)- D knew Consequences were a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY as a result of D’s actions

Question 6

R v Wentworth [1993] Ratio?

Answer 6

Wentworth: (NZ)-Foresight with SUFFICENT CERTAINTY when actions deliberately embarked on.

Question 7

Case following Wentworth’s oblique intention?

Answer 7

Police v K: (NZ)- D liable SUFFICENT CERTAINTY

Question 8

What else is in Police v K (NZ) Ratio? (motive)

Answer 8

Motive is related to intention but no need to prove a motive.

Question 9

What does Burley discuss about multiple intentions?

Answer 9

Mansterbating man LOL- a good intent and a bad intent are both intended.

Question 10

What does Burley discuss about Oblique intention?

Answer 10

Oblique intention cannot apply to emotional responses (Burley acquitted)

Question 11

Police v Wylie ratio?

Answer 11

Conditional intentions still count as a true intention. D intended to buy drugs when he entered the house but claimed he didn’t upon seeing the drugs. Conditional intention to buy on entry convicted D.

Question 12

How many limbs make up recklessness?

Answer 12

2

Question 13

What is Limb 1 for recklessness for both cases?

Answer 13

A risk of harm (Tipple) OR A real possibility of harm (Cameron)

Question 14

What is Limb 2 for recklessness in both cases?

Answer 14

It is unreasonable for D to run the risk he foresees (Tipple) OR
Having regard to the risk, their actions were unreasonable (Cameron)

Question 15

R v QF [2019] NZHC Ratio?

Answer 15

R v QF (NZ)- recklessness is established by an awareness of THE RISK (1st Limb Tipple) and having regard to that risk, acted UNRESONABLY (2nd Limb Cameroon)

Question 16

First case for Recklessness in the UK and ratio?

Answer 16

Cunningham (UK)- D acquitted of murder- needed to be “aware of the risk and carried out the act anyway” (subjective)

Question 17

Case that expanded the Recklessness test to be objective? D had (not given any..)

Answer 17

Caldwell (UK) - “not given any thought to the possibility of their being any such risk” Therefore requiring everyone to think about the risk of any action or else liable.

Question 18

Which case rejected Caldwell? (stupity should…)

Answer 18

R v G (UK)- “stupidity should not expose him to conviction” quite similar to negligence therefore rejected.

Question 19

Which case simplified Cameron’s test for harm, and what did it simplify it to?

Answer 19

Kupec (NZ) “real possibility of harm”

Question 20

What did Tipple define as factors of reasonableness in the test for Limb 2?

Answer 20

1. Likelihood of harm.
2. Nature and Gravity of Harm.
3. Social value of running the risk.

Question 21

What kind of test are both limbs of Recklessness?

Answer 21

The first limb is a subjective test, the second is an objective test.

Question 22

What kind of test is for Negligence?

Answer 22

Negligence is a objective test (what would a reasonable person have done)

Question 23

What is the 2 part test for Negligence?

Answer 23

Negligent if a Reasonable person:

1. Is aware of the risks of doing the Actus Reus.
2. Would not have run those risks.

Question 24

Negligence can be?

Answer 24

Ordinary or Gross

Question 25

Example of Ordinary negligence?

Answer 25

S8 LTA- A person may not drive a vechicle w/o RESONABLE consideration for others

Question 26

Example of Gross negligence?

Answer 26

S150= Applicable to people under legal duties “MAJOR DEPAPTURE” from standard of care expected of a RESONABLE person. Only applies to duties.

Question 27

Yogasakran [1990] ratio?

Answer 27

Yogasakaran found liable of negligence on the grounds that a “reasonable anesthetist would check the label” by the [HC]. [COA} dismissed the case sayin that should be compared to a “reasonable anesthetist in an emergency situation”

Question 28

Canadian cases (2) that raise issues of a reasonable person as an subjective test rather than an objective test?

Answer 28

R v Creighton (1993) 105 DLR 632- Manslaughter charge. Majority in this case concluded constant minimum standard is necessary. Minority wanted D to be compared to a reasonable “drug addict” (subjective).
R v Javanmardi [2019] SCC 54- “Reasonable person in the circumstances of the accused. D held he was an expert and was judged as so (subjective test being used and succeeding (although might be only for experts rather than those below a reasonable person)).

Question 29

Which case sets NZ precedent for Negligence?

Answer 29

R v Hamer [2005] 2 NZLR 81- It , an objective test. In that respect, the law in NewZealand is, in our view, similar to that outlined by McLachlin J in the Creighton decision.”

Question 30

Case following Hamer?

Answer 30

R v Kuka [2009] NZCA 572

Question 31

Key requirements for Transferred Malice?

Answer 31

Having the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea (intention) of the same offence but not intending to hurt V

Question 32

In what sections is TM built into (not all of them)

Answer 32

S167(c) Homicide and S188 Wounding w/ intent- any other person.

Question 33

Case justifying Transferred Malice?

Answer 33

Paterson v R [2014] NZCA 235- “] The doctrine is well-established… referred to two New Zealand High Court decisions where the doctrine has been recognized.

Question 34

Two types of Knowledge?

Answer 34

Actual Knowledge- Did they know it to a sufficient certainty? . Constructed Knowledge.

Question 35

Main case for constructed knowledge ratio?

Answer 35

R v Crooks [1981] 2 NZLR 53- Crooks asks for money, S leaves and comes back a short time later w/ bags filled of money. “Did he actually know” Suspicion on the facts the money was stolen but not enough for Actual knowledge, but a strong suspicion it was. “The court presents this as “Constructed Knowledge”.

Question 36

Main case of actual knowledge?

Answer 36

R v Crooks [1981] 2 NZLR 53- positive belief that relevant circumstances exist

Question 37

What does Simiester and Brookbanks say the D must be willfully blind to? Case that backs this premise up?

Answer 37

D must be shutting eyes in relation to The Actus Reus of the offence, it is not enough for any suspicious activity. Soles v R [2015] NZCA 32- thought it was something illegal, but not illegal drugs, not specific enough for knowledge.

Question 38

Ratio of Police v C [2018] NZHC 3334

Answer 38

“knew enough (of the facts) not to ask more (about the illegal activity)” (constructed knowledge).

Question 39

Simiester and Brookbanks cases for two types of “constructive knowledge”?

Answer 39

1. [Crooks]Defendant shuts his eyes and fails to inquire because he knows what the answer is going to be.
2. Refrains from inquiry in order not to know. (easy step with words or action by ones self deliberately not taken) [Zheng].Given key to suitcases she’s been asked to hide and supply to S to pick up from door, tell her when pickups occur with codewords, told suitcases contain medication, it was drugs “deliberately refrained from making further enquiries or confirming her suspicion because she wanted to remain in ignorance”

Question 40

Drug case when D’s take drugs for others unknowingly but failed to check. Knowledge in drug cases?

Answer 40

• R v Martin [2007] NZCA 386, [10]. NZCA showed in these cases that Constructive knowledge does stand.

Question 41

What is oblique intention?

Answer 41

Defendant recognizes that the actus reus is the virtual certain consequence of his actions (Oblique Intention)