Mens Rea

Question 1

Explain Intention, in regards to Mens Rea.

Answer 1

• Highest level of Mens Rea
• Person who intends to commit crime, said to be more blameworthy than one who acts recklessly
• Point that needs to be established: Did D decided to bring about prohibited consequence?
• 2 Types: Direct intention, Oblique intention

Question 2

Explain Direct and Oblique Intention, in regards to Mens Rea.

Answer 2

Direct intention:
- Often clear- easy to establish
- Scenario may state there’s been a punch/use of weapon- shows D has intention to use unlawful force on V

Oblique Intention:
- If D’s main aim wasn’t the prohibited consequence
- But in achieving aim, D foresaw he would also cause these consequences

Question 3

Explain Foresight of Consequences.

Answer 3

• Not same as intention, but can be used as evidence of intention
• Jury can use this evidence to find D had intention but only where harm caused was a virtual certainty and D realised this
• Only applies to offences of specific intent, e.g. Murder, Section 18 GBH
• For offences of basic intent, use recklessness
• Starting point for foresight of consequences is S.8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967

Question 4

State the Issues with intention where Foresight of Consequences are involved.

Answer 4

• If outcome was a natural/probable consequence
• Jurors finding it hard to apply tests
• Diff interpretations of tests in Woolin

Question 5

Explain Recklessness, in regards to Mens Rea.

Answer 5

• Wild carelessness and disregard for consequences
• Lower level of Mens Rea- lower than intention
• Min level of Mens Rea required for all non-fatal assualt offences: Common Assault, Battery, e.t.c.
• 2 offences to which recklessness isn’t sufficient for Mens Rea: S.18 GBH OAPA 1861, Murder

Question 6

State the test used to establish Recklessness.

Answer 6

• D realised risk of consequence happening
• D decided to take risk

Question 7

Explain Negligence, in regards to Mens Rea.

Answer 7

• Person is negligent if he fails to meet standards of a reasonable man
• Enough to make someone liable in civil law, usually not enough for a criminal offence
• Lower standard than intention or even recklessness
• What D intended isn’t relevant

Question 8

What are the exceptions to the general rules of Negligence?

Answer 8

• Negligence can occur in some statutory offences, e.g. driving without due care and attention
• Crim offence of Manslaughter committed through ‘Gross Negligence’. More than just civil negligence and must be so bad to be crim

Question 9

Explain Transferred Malice, in regards to Mens Rea.

Answer 9

• D can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a diff victim
• D’s intention transfers from intended V to actual V
• One situation where it can’t be used: When D intended a completely diff offence- Mens Rea completely diff then D may not be guilty of an offence

Question 10

Describe the coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea.

Answer 10

• General rule D must have Mens Rea at time of Actus Reus (must coincide)
• Called the Contemporaneity Rule or Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
• Most of the time people want to hurt someone, or be reckless to that fact, and they do it.

Question 11

Explain a Continuing Act, in respect to the Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea.

Answer 11

• Cases where courts have problems making the 2 coincide
• Situations where Actus Reus comes first, courts have treated Actus Reus as a ‘Continuing Act’ and stretched it over time to meet the point where D had Mens Rea.

Question 12

State the Test used for Foresight of Consequences.

Answer 12

• Was death/serious injury a virtual certainty from D’s voluntary act
• Did D foresee that consequence
• When Jury are satisfied on these 2 points, then there’s evidence of intention and Mens Rea can be satisifed.