Mens Rea Flashcards
What is mens rea?
The guilty mind
What is the difference between mens rea and motive?
Motive refers to the reason the defendant committed the criminal act usually over a longer period of time while mens rea is what they were thinking in the moment if doing the criminal act.
What are the 4 levels of MR
Direct intent
Indirect intent
Recklessness
Negligence-only relevant for a few types of crime
Define direct intent
Direct intentions is a decision to bring about, so far as is possible, a criminal consequence.
The criminal consequence is the D’s main aim, objective and purpose.
What case did the definition of direct intent come from?
Mohan(1976)
Summarise the facts of Mohan (1976)
D responded to a police officer’s signal to stop
Slowed down but then accelerated towards PC
PC moved out way
D drove off
D charged with attempt to cause bodily harm by wanton (deliberate and unprovoked) driving at a police constable.
Define indirect intent
When the D had another aim entirely, but the criminal consequence was a virtual certainty of his actions and the defendant knew it.
What cases can be used to demonstrate indirect intent?
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
Woollin (1998)
Summarise the facts of Matthews and Alleyne (2003).
Ds threw V into a deep river after robbing him.
Fully aware the V could not swim.
Ds found guilty of murder
The death or serious injury to the V was considered a “virtually certain” result of their actions and they knew it to be so
Summarise the facts Woollin (1998)
D feeding his young baby
Baby began crying and D, frustrated, threw baby towards the pram.
Baby hit wall and died
D found guilty of murder
The death or serious injury to the baby was considered a “virtually certain” result of his actions and he knew it to be so.
Define recklessness
Where there is a risk of the criminal consequence and the D knows it but carries on with the act anyway
What case can be used to demonstrate recklessness?
Cunningham (1957)
Summarise the facts of Cunningham (1957)
D tore gas meter from wall and stole money
Did not turn off gas
Gas escaped partially asphyxiated his prospective (future) mother-in-law who was asleep on her bedroom
D charged with having unlawfully and maliciously caused V to take a noxious thing.
What two questions should you answer to find out if someone was reckless and what should the answer be?
Was there some risk of criminal consequence?
Did the D know it?
Both should be answered yes
Apply the two recklessness questions to Cunningham (1957) .
Was there some risk of the criminal consequence? Yes
Did the D know it? No, so the case was quashed and he was not liable
How can someone be negligent and how is it different in civil vs criminal law?
If they have not reached the standard of the reasonable man in the circumstances.
This is enough for liability under civil law but not generally under criminal law.
What are the two exceptions to the general rule for the standard of the reasonable man not being enough under criminal law for liability?
- Some statutory offences, e.g. s.3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 under which negligent driving is enough for criminal liability.
- Gross negligence manslaughter (and even then its gross negligence not just negligence)
What is transferred malice?
Where the mens rea of the crime directed at one person is transferred to the unintended victim of the crime
What three cases are used to demonstrate transferred malice?
R v Latimer (1886)
R v Pembilton (1874)
R v Mitchell (1983)
Summarise the facts of Latimer (1886)
D a soldier during an argument with another man, C ,in a pub, took off his belt and swung at C.
He missed and wounded the landlady V.
Summarise the principle of Latimer (1886)
Intention to strike C was transferred to V under the doctrine of transferred malice.
Doctrine applied damage intended and which occurred was of the same type (injury to a person)
The D was guilty
What is the rule for something being transferred under the doctrine of transferred malice?
Has to be from person to person or property to property.
Not a mix of both
Summarise the facts of Pembilton (1874)
D broke pub window with stone when he was trying to throw at a group of men he had been fighting, missed them and broke the window instead.
Summarise the principle of Pembilton (1874)
D not guilty
“Malice” could not be transferred because the damage intended (injury to a person) and the damage which occurred (damage to property) were of different types.
Summarise the facts of Mitchell (1983)
D and another man S became involved in a scuffle in a Post Office; D pushed S, who fell onto an elderly lady V, causing V injuries from which she later died.
Summarise the principle of Mitchell (1983)
Guilt of manslaughter
Intention to strike S was transferred to V under the doctrine of transferred malice
Applied because the damage intended and the damage which occurred are of the same type (injury to the person)
What is the legal principle of transferred malice?
Only applicable when the actus Reus intended is the same as the actual actus Reus inflicted on the unintended victim.
Where the actus Reus is different from the intended actus Reus, no malice can be transferred.
Generally speaking, what must the actus Reus and the mens rea do for there to be criminal liability?
Must coincide (they must occur at the same time)
What is the principle/rule called when actus Reus and mens rea must coincide?
“Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea” or the contemporaneity rule
Why have the courts modified the contmeporaneity rule?
To make sure a series of linked acts or omissions can be treated as a single continuing act.
What is the first exception for the contemporaneity rule?
Where the actus Reus appears to occur before the mens rea
What case do we use for “where the actus Reus appears to occur before the mens rea”?
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
Summarise the facts of the case Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
D accidentally stopped his car on a policeman’s foot.
When the policeman asked him to move the car, he replied “f*ck off, you can wait.”
In Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) what did the D argue?
Actus Reus and mens rea did not coincide and there was no contemporaneity rule.
In Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969), what argument did the court use to find the D guilty?
That the whole episode was a “single continuing act”
That is that the actus Reus began when he ran over the foot and continued for the whole time the car was on his foot.
Therefore, actus Reus and mens rea did coincide.
What is the second exception for the contemporaneity rule?
Where the mens rea appears to occur before the actus Reus.
What cases can be used to demonstrate “where the mens rea seems to appear before the actus Reus.”?
Thabo Meli (1954)
Church (1966)
Summarise the facts of Thabo Meli (1954)
D hit victim over head intending to kill him
Believing V was dead and trying to make it look like an accident he threw him over cliff
V later died of exposure
Summarise the facts of Church (1966)
D(male) and V (female) had gone to his for s*xual purposes where she mocked his incompetence
In anger he knocked her out.
He mistakenly thought she was dead and threw her unconscious body in the river
She drowned
He was charged with manslaughter
What did the D in Thabo Meli (1954) and Church (1966) argue?
There was no coincidence rule.
What did the courts argue to find Thabo Meli (1954) and Church (1966) D’s guilty?
That the whole episode was part of a “single transaction”; as the mens rea was present at some point during the transaction, then there was contemporaneity.
What is an objective test?
From the perspective of the reasonable man
What is a subjective test?
From the perspective of the D
What test do we use for recklessness now? Subjective or objective?
Subjective
What are the two questions we need to ask to determine whether something is indirect intent?
Was the criminal consequence virtually certain?
Did the D know this?
If the answer to these two
questions is ‘yes’ what is this proof or evidence of intention?
The jury ask themselves ‘were the consequences a natural and probate consequence of the D’s actions.
And whether the defendant foresaw the consequence as a natural consequence of their actions.
Evidence of intention
What is evidence of intention?
Where there jury can say there is indirect intention but they do not have to
If the answer to the two indirect questions, regarding virtual certainty is ‘yes’ then is this proof or evidence of intention?
Proof of intention
What is proof of intention?
Where of the answer to both questions is ‘yes’ then the jury has to conclude there is indirect intention.
What are the jury not consistent with regarding indirect intention?
Proof of intention
