Mens Rea Flashcards
Mens Rea
concerns Ds state of mind when an incident occurs (was it intentional or an accident)
MR is the mental element of the offence
apart from strict liability MR must be present at some level in most offences
Who must prove MR
prosecution
Motive
motive has no place in the law, e.g. stealing food due to hunger, will still be convicted
Intention (specific intent)
highest level of MR
the defendant must have had it in his mind to bring about the consequence
Where MR is concerned
motive isn’t the issue, it is the intention to carry out the prohibited activity
Direct intent
Direct intent to kill
e.g. D puts a gun to Vs head, pulls the trigger and kills him
Oblique intent
Intended to cause harm but not kill
R v Hancock and Shankland - concrete block kills driver of the car (not intended results)
Foresight of consequences
e.g. dropping someone off a bridge knowing they can’t swim
if prosecution can prove that the D in doing his action with an intended consequence could actually foresee other negative consequences as a result, then he may be proved guilty.
Natural consequence
a consequence that might occur
Probable consequence
a consequence that most likely WILL occur
Moloney rules
- Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant’s act?
- Did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his act?
Problems with questions
it doesn’t address the question of whether a consequence was inevitable or not, just focuses on if it was possible or not
Nedrick rules
In Nedrick the COA tries to correct the problem in Moloney and suggests whether the outcome was inevitable and whether the defendant was aware of this or not (probable consequence)
Woollin
Law Lords stated that foresight of consequence (probable) needs to be ‘found’ rather than ‘inferred’ or ‘suggested’, unless death is a virtual uncertainty then intent can’t be found.
Problem with Woollin
if D says that they didn’t intend to kill the victim despite the consequence being probable the question remains whether they should be convicted of murder or not
if D says they didn’t have direct intent then they will be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder
Possible outcomes
- murder (oblique intent)
- no MR as he didn’t intend to kill him (accident)
- manslaughter (probable consequence)
foresight of consequence can be used as evidence to find intention but on it’s own it can’t be proof, you can use foresight of consequence to build an argument
Evaluating foresight of consequences as intention
problems - there is a difficulty in defining the concepts of intention where foresight of consequences is concerned
Difficulty in defining intention where foresight of consequences is concerned
- natural and probable consequence
- Difficulty for jurors in applying the test after Moloney and Hancock
- The change in Woollin from inferring intention to finding intention
- The fact that there are still two interpretations of Woollin
Subject recklessness
lower level of MR than intention
- D knows there is a risk of consequence, but takes the risk anyways
Negligence
failure of duty
- what D thought/intended isn’t relevant
Strict liability
no MR needed, just AR
- voluntary act, no defence of mistake and no due diligence available
No Fault
D can also be convicted however of his voluntary act resulted in an unforeseen prohibited circumstance
- doesn’t matter if D was totally blameless
Due diligence
where D had done all in his power to prevent the committing of an offence, it doesn’t matter though
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
