Mens Rea Flashcards
Intent
Wishing to bring about a consequence.
Intent: R v Moloney
Foresight of the probability of a consequence does not amount to an intention to bring about that consequence, but may be evidence of it.
Intent: R v Woollin
In murder cases where death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty from the defendants’ actions and they appreciated that to be the case, the jury may infer that the defendant intended to bring about such consequences (e.g. throwing baby on floor).
Specific Intent
Intention is critical part of the offence (e.g. murder)
Basic Intent
Requires less proof than specific intent, recklessness will often be enough.
Voluntary intoxication
Cannot form specific intent, can form basic intent.
Involuntary intoxication
Cannot form specific or basic intent.
Intoxication: DPP v Majewski
Defendant can still form required mens rea for basic intent offence when drunk.
Intoxication: R v Allen
Misjudging the strength of intoxicants is not involuntary intoxication.
Intoxication: R v Kingston
Defendants’ in some case can be shown to form the required mens rea even when intoxicated as drunken intent is still intent.
Intoxication: Jaggard v Dickinson
Mistaken belief due to intoxication can be a defence (e.g. damaging another’s property, believing it was your own)
Intoxication: R v Grady
Mistaken belief does is not a defence for murder, manslaughter or rape whilst intoxicated (e.g. murdering someone in the belief it was self-defence).
Intoxication: Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Using intoxicants to pluck up the Dutch courage to commit an offence rules out intoxication as a defence (e.g. doing a line on your way to murder someone)
Recklessness
Unjustified risk taking.
Recklessness: R v Cunningham
Subjective recklessness: the defendant foresees the consequences of their actions as being probable or even possible.
Recklessness: R v G
Awareness: In the defendants’ mind were they aware of the risk (e.g. children were not aware that the small fire they started could spread).
Reasonableness
Was it reasonable for the defendant to take the risk.
Malice
Either actual intention to cause the relevant harm or at least foresight of the risk of causing some harm to a person.
Wilfully
Intentionally or recklessly
Dishonestly
State of mind
Knowing: R v Dunne
A person who feels virtually certain about something can be regarded as knowing it.
Belief
Different to knowing as a belief can turn out to be mistaken.
Negligence
Acted in a way that runs contrary to the expectations of the reasonable person.
Strict Liability
Offences where mens rea does not need to be proved, the act itself is sufficient.
Strict Liability: DPP v H
Driving with excess alcohol does not require mens rea to be proved, it is strict liability.
Transferred Mens Rea: R v Latimer
Mens rea for an offence can be transferred from one target to another (e.g. trying to hit one person with a belt, missing, and hitting a different person).
Transferred Mens Rea: R v Pembliton
Mens rea cannot be transferred from one offence to another (e.g. a person throws a rock at a crowd intending to cause ABH, misses, and hits a window causing criminal damage).
