mens rea Flashcards
is motive relevant when determining criminal liability?
no-if they have the actus reus and mens rea with no absence of defence they will be guilty of murder regardless of their reasonings
what is direct intent?
a D intended something to happen if they wanted to bring it about so what it was their aim, purpose, goal or desire
what is indirect/oblique intention?
D argues that the outcome was not their main aim but a by-product of what they set out to achieve
according to s 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, when determining whether a person has committed an offence, the court must…?
not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of these actions but shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence
how are recklessness and justification of risk related?
D taking an unjustified risk is a requirement for recklessness, but if the risk is justified, it is not reckless
what makes a D reckless?
if they foresee a risk that something may happen as a result of their behaviour and go on without justification to take that risk (R v Cunningham)
how can negligence be proved?
by showing that the D’s conduct fell short of an objective standard
is the test for negligence objective or subjective?
objective- assessed against the reasonable person, only actions are relevant (not state of mind, motive or lack of experience)
what is an offence of strict liability?
exceptions to the general rule that mens rea is required for criminal offences- no intention necessary to make a conviction
what are strict liability offences made by?
usually statute
what are examples of the content in strict liability offences?
road safety, consumer protection, misuse of drugs, health and safety
what is the justification of strict liability offences?
public policy- to protect public and make conviction easier
how can we identify strict liability offences?
wording in statute is clear that offence is strictly liable o that it requires mens rea- if statute is silent there is a presumptino in favour of mens rea
what is Lord Reid’s distinction between quasi criminal acts and truly criminal acts?
in quasi the courts may infer strict liability where statute is silent, but in truly the court more reluctant to infer strict liability because of stigma of criminal conviction and the potential undermining confidence in judicial system if unjust convictions are publicised
what is transferred malice?
confirms that if a D has the malice to commit a crime against one victim/property, the malice is transferred so that the mens rea is transferred to the actus reus they commit against the unintended victim R v Latimer 1886
when does the doctrine of transferred malice not operate?
actus reus and mens rea relate to different types of offences, or if the mens rea of the offence includes recklessness
what is the significance of a continuing act?
the actus reus is brought about by a continuing act e.g. accidentally running over someone foot ( Fagan v Met Police Commissioner) (no mens rea for the act) but failing to move the car resulting in assault on the basis that the actus reus was a continuing act that coincided at some point with the required mens rea
what is the relevance of single transaction principle?
implied series of events and from start the D in involved in criminal activity- if eventual act that caused death is in the same sequence of events as initial act, the time lapse is irrelevant
what is basic intent?
lesser mens rea required than intention e.g. criminal damage and assaults are included as either intention or recklessness will satisfy the mens rea
what is specific intent?
only mens rea that suffices to convict a person of a crime is intention e.g. murder, assault under the Offences Against Person Act 1861
what is ulterior intent?
prosecution must prove extra element of mens rea against D before conviction e.g. intending to produce a consequence which went beyond the actus reus of the crime
what is the difference between actual knowledge and belief?
a person being certain that a circumstance exists whereas belief requires less certainty
what does the principle of coincidence require?
the actus and mens rea to coincide in time in order for a D to be guilty of an offence (if they do not coincide, no offence committed)
what are the questions of subjective test for recklessness?
did D forsee the possibility of the consequence occurring and was it unreasonable to rake the risk?
