Mens rea Flashcards
What is mens rea
The mental element of a crime
What are the 4 different levels of mens rea
Direct intent, oblique intent, subjective recklessness and negligence
What is direct intent
The D has the desired outcome in mind, you meant to do what you did
What case supports direct intent
Mohan
What is oblique intent
The outcome is a ‘virtual certainty’ and the defendant should realise this
What case supports oblique intent
Woolin
What is subjective recklessness
D must realise there is a risk of the consequence happening but decided to do it anyway
What case supports subjective recklessness
Cunningham
What is negligence
D has committed negligence/ wrongdoing which has resulted in the Vs injury death
What is the case that supports negligence
Adamako
What are the three principles under mens rea
Transferred malice, strict liability and coincidence rule
What is transferred malice
D can be criminally liable if they have the necessary mens rea to commit the crime but it just occurs against an unintended victim
What is a case that supports transferred malice
Latimer
What is the coincidence rule
The D can be guilty even if the mens rea and actus reus don’t occur at the same time
How many types of coincidence rules are there
2
What is the first type of coincidence rule
The offence happened, the defendant didn’t know they were committing it however when they found out they continued (the mens rea became present after the actus reus)
What case supports the first type of coincidence rule
Fagan v MPC
What is the second type of coincidence rule
The defendant had the mens rea of an offence but the actus reus did not happen until later, the mens rea will continue throughout if they are both a part of the same series of events
What case supports the second type of coincidence rule
Thabo Melo
What are strict liability offences
They are crimes that don’t require proof of mens rea
What is an example of a strict liability offence
Speeding, driving without insurance…
What case sets out the 5 factors the courts must consider with strict liability offences
Gammon ltd v AG of Hong Kong
What is set out in the case of gammon
Start with presumption MR is required for all offences (Sweet v Parsley), presumption stronger for truer crimes (B v DPP), presumption rebutted if there is evidence that Parliament wanted the crime to be a strict liability offence. Example being ‘intent’ omitted from a section but included it in other sections, then courts should presume Parliament did not add the word ‘intent’ on purpose as to make the crime a strict liability crime, presumption rebutted in cases of social concern – activity causes pollution then courts should look at intention/ recklessness, presumption is rebutted if making the offence a strict liability offence will assist in prevent in from occurring.
Case that supports strict liability offences
Sweet V parsley
