Mens Rea

Question 1

Explain direct intention.

Answer 1

• R v Mohan: direct intention - D intended to bring about prohibited consequence.

Question 2

Explain indirect intention.

Answer 2

• D’s main aim wasn’t prohibited consequence, but in achieving that aim D should’ve foresaw he would cause that consequence.
• Moloney: oblique intention isn’t intention, but can be used as evidence to find intention.
• Hancock + Shankland: developed Moloney - greater probability of consequence, more likely consequence was foreseen + intended.
• Nedrick: created test.
• Woolin: developed test we still use.
  1) Was death / serious injury virtual certainty?
  2) Did D foresee consequence?
• Mathews + Alleyne: confirmed tests from Woolin.

Question 3

Explain recklessness.

Answer 3

• Lower form of MR.
• ‘Wild carelessness + disregard for consequences’
• Cunningham: sets out test
  1) Did D realise risk?
  2) Did he decide to take it anyway?
• Savage: confirmed test. When Act of Parliament uses word ‘maliciously’ - can be taken to mean that recklessness can be used.

Question 4

Explain transferred malice.

Answer 4

• D can be guilty even if he intended to commit similar crime but against different V - MR will transfer from intended V to actual V.
• Latimer: malice will transfer if offence is of similar nature.
• Pembilton: if it’s not a similar crime, malice wont transfer.

Question 5

Explain the coincidence of AR + MR.

Answer 5

• Thabo-Meli v R: contemporaneity rule - AR + MR coincide.
• Fagan v MPC: AR happens first + then MR starts - when D becomes aware of what he’s doing but continues - still guilty.