mens rea

Question 1

is motive relevant when determining criminal liability?

Answer 1

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

Question 2

what is direct intent?

Answer 2

a D intended something to happen if they wanted to bring it about so what it was their aim, purpose, goal or desire

Question 3

what is indirect/oblique intention?

Answer 3

D argues that the outcome was not their main aim but a by-product of what they set out to achieve

Question 4

according to s 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, when determining whether a person has committed an offence, the court must…?

Answer 4

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

Question 5

how are recklessness and justification of risk related?

Answer 5

D taking an unjustified risk is a requirement for recklessness, but if the risk is justified, it is not reckless

Question 6

what makes a D reckless?

Answer 6

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)

Question 7

how can negligence be proved?

Answer 7

by showing that the D’s conduct fell short of an objective standard

Question 8

is the test for negligence objective or subjective?

Answer 8

objective- assessed against the reasonable person, only actions are relevant (not state of mind, motive or lack of experience)

Question 9

what is an offence of strict liability?

Answer 9

exceptions to the general rule that mens rea is required for criminal offences- no intention necessary to make a conviction

Question 10

what are strict liability offences made by?

Answer 10

usually statute

Question 11

what are examples of the content in strict liability offences?

Answer 11

road safety, consumer protection, misuse of drugs, health and safety

Question 12

what is the justification of strict liability offences?

Answer 12

public policy- to protect public and make conviction easier

Question 13

how can we identify strict liability offences?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

what is Lord Reid’s distinction between quasi criminal acts and truly criminal acts?

Answer 14

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

Question 15

what is transferred malice?

Answer 15

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

Question 16

when does the doctrine of transferred malice not operate?

Answer 16

actus reus and mens rea relate to different types of offences, or if the mens rea of the offence includes recklessness

Question 17

what is the significance of a continuing act?

Answer 17

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

Question 18

what is the relevance of single transaction principle?

Answer 18

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

Question 19

what is basic intent?

Answer 19

lesser mens rea required than intention e.g. criminal damage and assaults are included as either intention or recklessness will satisfy the mens rea

Question 20

what is specific intent?

Answer 20

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

Question 21

what is ulterior intent?

Answer 21

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

Question 22

what is the difference between actual knowledge and belief?

Answer 22

a person being certain that a circumstance exists whereas belief requires less certainty

Question 23

what does the principle of coincidence require?

Answer 23

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)

Question 24

what are the questions of subjective test for recklessness?

Answer 24

did D forsee the possibility of the consequence occurring and was it unreasonable to rake the risk?

Question 25

why is negligence NOT considered a mens rea element?

Answer 25

requires inadvertence

Question 26

what does a subjective approach to recklessness and intention examine?

Answer 26

what the D himself saw or perceived as a consequence of his actions

Question 27

what does the objective approach to negligence examine?

Answer 27

it compares the D’s actions with those of a hypothetical reasonable person

Question 28

why is motive not relevant to criminal liability yet intention is?

Answer 28

Lord Bridge in Moloney 1985: ‘intention is something quite distinct from motive or desire’ e/g/ D might intend to commit an offence yet have an admirable motive

Question 29

when can motive become relevant

Answer 29

after conviction- might be used in mitigation to reduce the sentence imposed on offender

Question 30

what is the most culpable form of mens rea?

Answer 30

intention- involves acting with the objective of bringing about a consequence or with the desire to bring about the consequence and foresight that those actions are virtually certain to do so

Question 31

what is oblique intent?

Answer 31

less common form of intention not involving a persons aim/purpose/desire to do an act BUT requires the consequences of Ds actions to be virtually certain to occur with the Ds appreciation that they are so

Question 31

what is the virtual certainty test? (Nedrick 1986)

Answer 31

jury must conclude that D foresaw the prohibited consequence as a virtually certain result of his actions

Question 32

what case demonstrated that state of mind is not a factor in determining intention?

Answer 32

DPP v Smith- claims intention is an objective concept- D accelerated after being pulled over by police, police officer died by holding onto side of the car- D convicted even though no intention to actually kill

Question 33

what must the jury decide to find that the D had the mens rea for murder?

Answer 33

feel sure that death/serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of Ds actions AND that the D appreciated this

Question 34

what is the relationship between intoxication and intention?

Answer 34

if voluntary intoxication, D has no defence to a ‘basic intent’ offence but may be able to use evidence of his voluntary intoxication to negate the mens rea of ‘specific intent’ offence as he didn’t form the necessary intention and thus not liable

Question 35

what is Lord Bingham’s definition of recklessness proposed by Law Commission set out in clause 18 of the Draft Criminal Code 1989?

Answer 35

a person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; a result when he is aware of a risk that will occur, and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk

Question 36

what is oblique intent?

Answer 36

when a person doe snot desire the consequence, but appreciates that it is virtually certain to occur as a result of their actions