Mens Rea Flashcards
Mens rea?
There is a general presumption that criminal liability is based on fault.
Mens rea concern’s the defendants state of mind when an incident occurs. Did he intend to do it, was it an accident and so on.
Mens rea is the mental element of the offence.
Apart from strict liability, mens rea must be present at some level in most offences.
It is up to the prosecution to prove mens rea
what case can be used to directly describe mens rea hint (clarke/depression/bag)
R v Clarke (1972)- after the defendant proved she suffered from absent-mindedness due to depression, she was acquitted of theft after putting items in her own bag without paying for them
intention (specific intent) and motive
what is the highest level of mens rea?
what is a case for this?
The highest level of mens rea is intention. In other words,the defendant must have had it in his mind to bring about the consequence.
In Mohan (1975) the judge made very clear that the reason for carrying out the action was not relevant to the point.
Direct intent and oblique intent
give the two edg examples of these
1)gun 2)bridge
Example of the direct intent:
EGD puts gun to Vs head, pulls the trigger and kills him. Here, the direct intent was for D to kill V.
Example of oblique intent:
EGD pushes a concrete block from a bridge onto the roadway with the intention of frightening someone so as the stop him going to work. Concrete block kills driver of the car -not the intended result.
Describe the case of Hancock and Shankland
Ds were miners who were on strike. They tried to prevent another miner from going to work by pushing a concrete block from a bridge onto the road along which he was being driven to work in a taxi. The block struck the windscreen of the taxi and killed the driver. The trial judge used the Moloner guidelines to direct the jury, and Ds were convicted of murder. On appeal, the court of Appeal quashed their convictions.
What is the Foresight of consequences
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant in doing one action with an intended consequence could actually foresee other negative consequences as a result, then he may be proved guilty.
In other words, if I burn down a shop in order to get an insurance claim, but there are people in the shop that get injured, it is reasonable to presume that I knew beforehand that my actions might endanger the people inside
what are the two types of consequences
Natural consequence=a consequence that might occur.
Probable consequence=a consequence that most likely WILL occur.
What is subjective recklessness
Subjective recklessness is a lower level of mens rea than intention
The defendant knows there is a risk of consequence, but takes the risk anyway.
what is negligence
Negligence is what the defendant thought or intended is not relevant.
Negligence is defined as failing to meet the standards of a reasonable person.
This has a lower level of fault than intention and recklessness.
what is strict liability
This is where Mens rea is not required to at least one aspect of the actus reus.
For all offences there is a starting point that mens rea is required, however if the offence is decided to not need mens rea in any one part, then its a case of strict liability
describe the case of pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986)
in this case D had supplied drugs without a doctors prescription D had supplied drugs on prescriptions, but the prescriptions were later found to be forged.
there was so evidence that D acted dishonestly, improperly or negligently. The forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists.
Defendant was however charged under s58 (2) of the Medicines Act 1968 which states that no one shall supply certain drugs without a doctors prescription as the pharmacists (defendant) had supplied the drugs without a genuine prescription.
what are the problems with statutory interpretation
It is usually clear whether parliament has expressed that mens rea is required or not from the language used in the statute.
This becomes a problem for the courts, when this is not clear.
The wording of an act of parliament may also need to be examined closely to see if there are any sections that either imply strict liability or the defence of due diligence
If there are express provisions for mens rea in other sections of the act, then the courts have to think about what parliaments original intent might have been.
What are Quasi-criminal offences
Some offences are not defined as ‘truly criminal’, but they are still strict liability. These are known as regulatory offences.
E.g selling food out of date or unfit for consumption-Callow v Tillstone (1900)-
Selling of alcohol-Cundy v Lee Cocq(1884)
Building regulations Gammon(1984)
Selling lottery tickets Shah(1999)
what is penalty of imprisonment
When an offence carries a penalty of imprisonment, it is much more likely to be treated as an offence that is ‘truly criminal’ rather than one of strict liability.
