Mens Rea Flashcards
Strict Liability
No need to prove the mens rea
Specific Intent
Where the defendant is shown to have had a particular intention to bring about a specific consequence at the time of the criminal act.
Negligence
Generally concerned with the defendant’s compliance with the standards of reasonableness of ordinary people.
Intent
If a defendant intends something to happen, he/she wishes to bring about certain consequences.
- at the time of the criminal act there was a probability of a consequence;
- the greater the probability; the more likely it is that the defendant foresaw that consequence;
- if the defendant foresaw that consequence, the more likely it is that the defendant intended it to happen.
Recklessness
Recklessness is subjective. If the defendant did not see the risk, then he/she is not reckless
Defendant aware small risk but does not automatically mean it’s a reasonable risk to take
Wilfully
It should not be understood in a literal sense as meaning deliberate or voluntary. Means intentionally or recklessly.
Transferred Malice
The doctrine only operates if the crime remains the same.
(You throw a rock into a crown intending injuring one person. If the rock hits, and injures another, that malice is transferred. If the rock damages something, then the malice is not transferred.)
Relevant to S18, 20, 23, 24 offences against person
X encourages Y to assault Z. Y attacks different person. X will not be liable for that assault as it was not agreed/contemplated by X. If in trying to assault Z Y happens to injure a third person this transferred MENS REA being liable even though he did not wish for that to be caused.
Voluntary intoxication
can be raised in answer to a charge of an offence of specific intent but not basic intent.
Involuntary intoxication
can be raised in answer to a charge of both specific and basic offences.
If defendants simply misjudge the amount or strength of intoxicants which they take, this will not be regarded as involuntary intoxication (R v Allen [1988]
Intoxication
no defence intoxication if planned before
Where the defendant forms a ‘mistaken belief’ based on the fact that he/she is intoxicated, that belief may sometimes be raised as a defence.
criminal damage where a defendant has mistakenly believed that the property being damaged is his/her own property, and that mistaken belief has arisen from the defendant’s intoxicated state, the courts have accepted the defence Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] QB 527)
Where the defendant mistakenly believed that the victim of a rape was consenting to sexual intercourse.
Intoxication - drugs
The courts will consider the known effects of the drug in deciding whether or not defendants had formed the required degree of mens courts will consider the known effects of the drug in deciding whether or not defendants had formed the required degree of mens rea; the characteristics of the drugs will be relevant in determining whether defendants behaved recklessly in taking them.rea; the characteristics of the drugs will be relevant in determining whether defendants behaved recklessly in taking them.
Automatism
A bees fly into car causing reflex action and by A crashing car – involuntary action and not sufficient to support criminal charge. Spasm, sneezing
Inadvertence and mistake
test whether D mistaken belief was honest/ genuine. Negligence inadvertence not a defence. Theft A appropriates property in belief they have legal right to deprive another.
Duress
Threat driven D to commit offence, D must have acted as a sober and reasonable person sharing the D characteristics would have done, threat death/injury must be anticipated at or near to time of the offence. NOT available if D failed to take advantage of opportunity to neutralize of threat. No defence if you expose yourself to the threat (gang/terrorism).
Duress of circumstance
A is DISCO. He drove to take son to work as wife threatened to commit suicide if he did not. Duress comes from threat made to which compels them to commit offence. Completed act as result he reasonably believed could result in death of injury if didn’t. Would sober person act in same way in same circumstance. Defence available except from murder, attempt murder, or treason.
Defence of self, other and property
A2 right to life – defend persons from unlawful violence, effect lawful arrest prevent escape of lawfully detained person, action taken for quelling riot or insurrection. Police officer using lethal force to protect another. Protect persons from known and avoidable dangers.
Use of force in defence prevention of crime and lawful arrest
person use force he believes for purpose of self-defence, defence of another, defence of property, prevention crime, lawful arrest.
Criminal law act 1967
s76 self-defence – person honestly believed it was necessary to use force not disproportionate in circumstance.
Y has previous for violence. Y attacks X. X aware of past. X believe Y will stab him when going to jacket. Y hits X breaking arm. X did not have knife. BELIEVED THIS TO BE TRUE TO HAVE KNIFE. Would not apply if X hit Y for no reason believing he had a knife as he walked in pub.
House holder case
s43 of crime and courts – use of disproportionate force can be regarded as reasonable in circumstance as accused believed them to be when householders are acting to protect themselves or others from trespassers in their homes. NOT COVER attack street, prevent crime or protect property.
Defence property
Use of reasonable force to protect property. Lethal force may fall foul of s76 as would be disproportionate.
Police officers
Liable for assaults. Issue may be with technique officer trained to use, dependant on circumstance does not matter technique used each maybe lawful/unlawful.
Infancy
children under 10 no criminal responsibility under s50 children’s act.
