Mens Rea

Question 1

mens rea and fault

Answer 1

general assumption that liability should be based on fault is consistent with out sense of justice.
mens rea examines state of mind of D at time of committing offence
it is what person’s state of mind is that distinguishes between mere accident and criminal offence (R v Clarke)
absence of mens rea will lead to acquittal except for state of affairs

Question 2

mens rea

Answer 2

mental element of an offence, each offence has own mens rea, exception is strict liabilty
prosecution proves mens rea

Question 3

intention (specific intent)

Answer 3

highest level of mens rea
in Mohan, courts defined it as “decision to bring about the prohibited consequence, no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not”

makes it clear that defendant’s motive/reason for doing act is not relevant, important point is that they intended to bring about consequence

Question 4

direct intent

Answer 4

D intends the specific consequence to occur

Question 5

oblique intent

Answer 5

D intends one thing but the actual consequence is another thing (Hancock v Shankland)

Question 6

Foresight of consequences

Answer 6

with oblique intent, if, in achieving what they intended, D foresaw that he/she would also cause those consequences, then he/she may be found guilty.
leading case- woollin

Question 7

foresight of consequences and moloney

Answer 7

ruled FOC is only evidence of intention, not intention itself
monoley guidelines were problematic, the word probable was not mentioned

Question 8

foresight of consequences and Nedrick

Answer 8

jury not entitled to infer necessary intention unless sure consequence was a virtual certainty and D appreciated this

Question 9

foresight of consequences and woollin

Answer 9

direction in Nedrick should not use word ‘infer’, instead jury should be told its entitled to find intention

Question 10

subjective recklessness

Answer 10

lower level of mens rea than intention
where D knows there is a risk of consequence happening but takes that risk
Cunningham

Question 11

Cunningham and subjective recklessness

Answer 11

subjective as D realised risk
used ‘maliciously’ to indicate mens rea
R v Savage confirms same rules apply to all offences using word ‘maliciously’

Question 12

offences where recklessness is sufficient

Answer 12

-assault, battery
-ABH
malicious wounding (s.20)

Question 13

Negligence

Answer 13

failure to meet the standard of the reasonable person.
guilty if they don’t act like a reasonable person under circumstances, making it a much lower level of fault
Adomako

Question 14

strict liability

Answer 14

offences where mens rea is not required in respect to at least one aspect of actus reas
must be proved they have right actus reus

Question 15

transferred malice

Answer 15

principle that D can be guilty if intended to commit a similar crime but against a different person - Latimer

where mens rea is for completely different offence, D may not be guilty - Pembliton (intention to hit people but transferred to window)

more recent- R v Gnango

Question 16

General malice

Answer 16

D may not have specific V in mind, D’s mens rea will be held to actual Vs

Question 17

coincidence of MR and AR

Answer 17

both must be present at same time

Question 18

continuing act and coincidence

Answer 18

where there is continuing act for AR and at some point while act is still going on D has the MR, then the 2 do coincide and D will be guilty
Fagan v Metropolitan Police