Mens rea

Question 1

Strict liability offences and mens rea

Answer 1

Offences which require no mens rea

E.g. driving without insurance

Question 2

Basic intent

Answer 2

Intent or recklessness will suffice

Question 3

Specific liability

Answer 3

Intention to bring about a specific consequence

E.g. murder = intention to kill or cause GBH

Question 4

Intent - s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967

Answer 4

Intent is not just about what person says about whether or not they intended it. The jury is entitled to look at the full circumstances to decide whether D intended or foresaw it as probable/possible

Question 5

Does probability = intention?

Answer 5

Foresight of the probability of a consequence does not amount to intention to bring that consequence about, but may be evidence of it

Question 6

Who decides intention?

Answer 6

Question of fact for the jury

Question 7

Voluntary intoxication and mens rea

Answer 7

If D commits a crime of SPECIFIC intent and was voluntarily intoxicated at the time, they may be able to show they were so intoxicated that they were incapable of forming the mens rea required for the offence.

Question 8

Involuntary intoxication and mens rea

Answer 8

If D was involuntarily intoxicated and committed a crime of BASIC OR SPECIFIC intent, they may be able to say they lacked mens rea

Question 9

Is misjudging strength of alcohol involuntary intoxication?

Answer 9

No

Question 10

What if D forms a mistaken belief due to being intoxicated?

Answer 10

May be a defence

E.g. was a defence under s5 criminal damage when D believed it was his own property

Question 11

Dutch courage

Answer 11

If D becomes intoxicated to gain false courage to go out and commit a crime they won’t be able to use intoxication defence as they have already formed the intent required and intoxication is just for Dutch courage to carry it out

Question 12

What type of recklessness do we use?

Answer 12

Subjective

Question 13

Subjective recklessness case

Answer 13

R v Cunningham 1957

Question 14

Subjective recklessness

Answer 14

D foresees the consequence as probable or possible.
Requires consideration of the degree of risk that is actually foreseen by D of which he is aware and whether it was reasonable.
So D must have foreseen the risk, NOT a reasonable person.

Question 15

Malice

Answer 15

Intention to cause the relevant harm or at least foresight of the risk of causing some harm to a person.

Question 16

Wilfully

Answer 16

Intentionally or recklessly

Question 17

Knowing

Answer 17

Being absolutely sure
Or
Virtually certain

Question 18

Belief

Answer 18

Same as knowing - absolutely sure or virtually cerain

But knowing implies correctness whereas belief could turn out to be mistaken

Question 19

Negligence

Answer 19

Concerned with Ds compliance with the standards of reasonableness or ordinary people

Question 20

Transferred mens rea

Answer 20

Mens rea can be transferred from original target victim to another
But only if the type of crime is the same
E.g. assault to assault
Could not be assault to criminal damage