MENS REA Flashcards
what is direct intention?
leading case?
- D intends AR directly if they act with Purpose/Aim towards it
- D’s belief in likely success of their aim = Irrelevant
Moloney [1985]
what is oblique/indirect intention?
leading case?
- D intends AR obliquely where it’s:
a) Virtually Certain (Objective)
b) Recognises that it’s Virtually Certain (Subjective)
c) Jury finds that this Recognition Amounts to an Intention
Woollin [1999]
example of Direct Intention for Criminal Damage where:
D smashes V’s vase in retaliation for V scratching their car
D commits criminal damage with intention + result elements:
- D directly intends Result element of offence (damage) as they act in order to cause it
- D directly intends the circumstance element (that the vase belongs to another) as they hope it belongs to V
Hyam v DPP [1975] case facts
which intention does this relate to?
- Oblique Intention
- D put blazing newspaper through the letterbox of her rival (X) causing a house fire
- D’s intention was to scare X, BUT in fact caused the deaths of X’s children (V).
- D argued their intent was to scare, Not kill/cause GBH (MR for Murder)
HoL upheld Murder conviction
- MR for murder met if D knowingly commits an act which was aimed at someone + which was committed with the intention of causing death or serious injury
- O.I. was defined in terms of Foresight as of “High Probability”
Lord Halisham: “the means as well as the end”
- you don’t have to desire the end result, but you have to ‘intend’ for it to happen
Woollin [1999] case facts
which intention does this relate to?
what did this case establish?
Oblique Intention
- established 3 Part Test for O.I.
- D killed his baby by throwing them against hard surface after being frustrated about them crying
- no desire to kill child
- D charged with Murder (requiring MR of intent o kill/GBH)
Crown court held Guilty of Murder
- Judge directed Jury that they could find intention IF they were satisfied D realised their actions posed “Substantial Risk” of causing death/serious injury
HoL overturned, D Guilty of Manslaughter
- “Substantial risk” blurred lines between intention + recklessness –> recklessness not a state of mind sufficient to convict D of murder, important to keep them distinct
- *Endorsed standard of “Virtual Certainty” from CoA in Nedrick [1986], stating it’s up to Jury to decide if D intended obliquely (i.e. Step C in Test)
3 Part Test says Result must be:
a) Virtually Certain
b) Foreseen by D as Virtually Certain
c) Jury finds this Recognition to amount to Intention
what is Virtual Certainty?
how is it different from Recklessness?
Virtual Certainty = D sees circumstance/result as practically INEVITABLE
(belief of) Recklessness = D foresees future event as likely, very likely or probable
Moloney [1985] case facts
which intention does this relate to?
direction on O.I.?
Direct Intention
- D shot step-father whom he loved in drunken contest involving quick-drawing of loaded shotguns
- D was drunk + didn’t realise gun was aimed at V
D initially charged with Murder
HoL quashed this, reduced to Manslaughter
- incorrect direction from trial judge that D foreseeing a mere probability could count as an Intention
*Judge should avoid elaboration of what “Intent” means + leave it to Jury tod decide if D acted with necessary intent, unless case facts require elaboration *
Lord Bridge Guidance for O.I. for Jury: (Hancock case)
1) was death/GBH for Murder (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of D’s voluntary act?
2) Did D foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act?
If BOTH = Yes, then Direct Intention found
see notes for EVOLUTION of O.I. in terms of MR Timeline of Cases
see notes
Hancock & Shankland [1986] case facts
which intention is this related to?
issues related to this case + intention?
- D1 + D2 (striking miners) pushed concrete block from motorway bridge to scare working miners below in taxis
- block hit a car + killed V
Trial Court convicted Ds of Murder, followed L. Bridge’s guidance on foresight of “natural consequences”
BUT conviction quashed on Appeal
- CoA + HoL concerned that Foresight of natural consequences may go beyond Foresight of something certain/Virtually certain
BUT language used by Lord Scarman suggested lower threshold may be acceptable:
- “the greater the probability of a consq the more likely it is that the consq was foreseen + that if that consq was foreseen the greater the probability is that the consq was also intended”
Nedrick [1986] case facts
- D poured paraffin through X’s letterbox + set alight
- killed a child (V) in house fire
Trial Court convicted D or Murder
- followed Judge’s direction that Intentions should be found where D Foresaw death/injury as “Highly Probable”
CoA quashed conviction:
- Lord Lane CJ clarified that Jury “aren’t entitled to infer the necessary intention, UNLESS they feel sure that death/serious bodily harm was virtually certain (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of D’s actions + that D appreciated that was the case”
- i.e.: D must appreciate the consequences
R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] case facts
- Ds threw V into river –> drowned + died
- Ds argued although they knew V couldn’t swim, did not mean for V to die
-Judge directed Jury that they MUST find Ds Guilty IF they found they had Foresight that V was “Virtually Certain” to die/suffer serious harm
CoA dismissed appeal, despite Misdirection from Judge
- mistakenly treated tests from Nedrick + Woollin as SUBSTANTIVE Rule of Law, BUT it was only Rule of Evidence
- ‘Approved direction’ in Nedrick and Woollin was that the jury was entitled to find intention for murder based on their appreciation that death was ‘virtually certain’, NOT that they Must find intention
see notes for conditional intention
see notes
what is the Recklessness Test?
which cases established this?
A) D Foresaw risk of relevant AR element (e.g. circumstance, result) [SUBJECTIVE] –> R v Cunningham [1957]
B) D Unreasonably continued to run that risk [OBJECTIVE] –> R v G and another [2003]
IF answers to A + B = Yes, then = Recklessness
see more on Recklessness in notes
see notes
what is the test for Negligence/Gross Negligence?
which case set this out?
A) D had duty of care
B) D breached duty
C) D’s Negligence MUST be considered sufficiently extreme to be considered “Gross” by Jury (High Treshold) –> R v Adomako [1995]
