Mens rea

Question 1

Intention

Answer 1

Mohan, motive is irrelevant and different from intention
s.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 - a jury can infer intention from D’s action and all evidence brought together, not just foresight of consequences

Question 2

Direct intention

Answer 2

Defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. D wants a specific outcome and takes steps to make it happen

Question 3

Oblique intention

Answer 3

Defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, but by doing so they are aware that some other consequence will also happen. They do not especially desire the additional consequence, but they are aware that it is inevitable.
R v Nedrick, letterbox petrol fire
R v Woollin, thrown baby at pram
Virtually certain something would happen

Question 4

Recklessness

Answer 4

D knows risk of consequence but does something anyway - from R v G and R, wheelie bin Co-op fire
Cunningham confirms recklessness is subjective, means what D personally saw happening

Question 5

Negligence

Answer 5

Person is negligent when they fail to meet the standards of a reasonable man
Makes it an objective test
D guilty if dont act as a reasonable man would in the circumstances