Mens Rea

Question 1

Mens Rea

Answer 1

concerns Ds state of mind when an incident occurs (was it intentional or an accident)

Question 2

MR is the mental element of the offence

Answer 2

apart from strict liability MR must be present at some level in most offences

Question 3

Who must prove MR

Answer 3

prosecution

Question 4

Motive

Answer 4

motive has no place in the law, e.g. stealing food due to hunger, will still be convicted

Question 5

Intention (specific intent)

Answer 5

highest level of MR
the defendant must have had it in his mind to bring about the consequence

Question 6

Where MR is concerned

Answer 6

motive isn’t the issue, it is the intention to carry out the prohibited activity

Question 7

Direct intent

Answer 7

Direct intent to kill
e.g. D puts a gun to Vs head, pulls the trigger and kills him

Question 8

Oblique intent

Answer 8

Intended to cause harm but not kill
R v Hancock and Shankland - concrete block kills driver of the car (not intended results)

Question 9

Foresight of consequences

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Natural consequence

Answer 10

a consequence that might occur

Question 11

Probable consequence

Answer 11

a consequence that most likely WILL occur

Question 12

Moloney rules

Answer 12

1. Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant’s act?
2. Did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his act?

Question 13

Problems with questions

Answer 13

it doesn’t address the question of whether a consequence was inevitable or not, just focuses on if it was possible or not

Question 14

Nedrick rules

Answer 14

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)

Question 15

Woollin

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Problem with Woollin

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Possible outcomes

Answer 17

1. murder (oblique intent)
2. no MR as he didn’t intend to kill him (accident)
3. 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

Question 18

Evaluating foresight of consequences as intention

Answer 18

problems - there is a difficulty in defining the concepts of intention where foresight of consequences is concerned

Question 19

Difficulty in defining intention where foresight of consequences is concerned

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

Subject recklessness

Answer 20

lower level of MR than intention
- D knows there is a risk of consequence, but takes the risk anyways

Question 21

Negligence

Answer 21

failure of duty
- what D thought/intended isn’t relevant

Question 22

Strict liability

Answer 22

no MR needed, just AR
- voluntary act, no defence of mistake and no due diligence available

Question 23

No Fault

Answer 23

D can also be convicted however of his voluntary act resulted in an unforeseen prohibited circumstance
- doesn’t matter if D was totally blameless

Question 24

Due diligence

Answer 24

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)

Question 25

Statutory interpretation

Answer 25

when a law/act of parliament and it isn’t very clear (ambiguous/open to interpretation) the judge has to try and apply the law in the way he would imagine it was intended by parliament

Question 26

Problems with statutory interpretation

Answer 26

• it is usually clear whether Parliament had expressed that MR is required or not from the language used in the statute
• 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 diligence

Question 27

Reasonable person

Answer 27

a person of the same characteristics as D and would they react in the same way to the situation

Question 28

Objective test

Answer 28

thinking about it from the perspective of someone of the same characteristics as D