Mens Rea Flashcards
A farmer is in financial difficulties as his crop has failed and he is worried that he will lose his farm to the bank. In desperation, he decides that he will set fire to the barn where the crop is stored, as he will receive more money from the insurance company than from selling it. One night, at around midnight, the farmer uses petrol to set light to a hay bale near the exit of the barn and then returns to his house. The fire quickly takes hold and the barn is destroyed.
When the Fire Service arrives, the farmer discovers that two boys were trapped inside the barn and died in the fire. When questioned by the police, he said: “I was aware that local boys usually meet there to drink and take drugs, but I decided not to check as I was more worried about not being seen”.
The farmer is charged with murder.
On what basis is the prosecution most likely to present the case against the farmer for murder?
A-He directly intended the boys’ deaths
B-He indirectly intended the boys’ deaths.
C-He was reckless in causing the boys’ deaths.
D-He was negligent in causing the boys’ deaths.
E-He is strictly liable for the boys’ deaths.
The correct answer is option B. Although the farmer did not have the direct intent to kill the boys (option A) as his aim or purpose was to destroy the barn and his crop for the insurance monies, he may have indirect intent. This is because the consequence (the boys’ deaths) is virtually certain to occur given that the farmer lit the fire at midnight and did not check whether anyone was inside, even though he knew it was used as a meeting place for local boys. Furthermore, the farmer’s admission in the police interview demonstrates that he appreciated this.
Option C is wrong as murder cannot be committed recklessly (only an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm will suffice); and Option D is wrong for the same reason.
Option E is wrong because murder is not an offence of strict liability.
A man is alleged to have set fire to his own factory to obtain insurance money. Two employees died as a result of the fire and the man has been charged with murder. The prosecution has been able to establish the actus reus of murder and must now prove the mens rea element of the offence.
What does mens rea mean?
A-The motive for the offence.
B-The reason why an offence is committed.
C-The mental state of the man when committing an offence.
D-The physical aspect of the offence.
E-Whether the man caused the outcome.
The correct answer is C - the mens rea is the mental state of the man when committing the offence.
Option A and B are wrong because the motive or reason why the defendant committed the offence is irrelevant to mens rea.
Option D is wrong because the physical aspect of the offence is referred to as the actus reus.
Option E relates to causation which is part of the actus reus of the offence.
A boy throws a stone at a classmate who has humiliated him in front of his friends, but he hits the girl who is standing next to the classmate instead. The stone hits the girl on the head and she is knocked unconscious, falling to the floor. The boy picks her up to try and get help for the girl, but she is too heavy and slips from his grasp. She bangs her head on the pavement and dies from a fractured skull.
Which of the following statements correctly describes the boy’s liability for the girl’s death?
A-The doctrine of transferred malice does not apply because the boy’s intention to hit the classmate cannot be transferred to the girl.
B-There is no need to consider transferred malice because the boy hit the girl and the mens rea of assault includes recklessness.
C-The doctrine of transferred malice would apply if the boy had intended to smash the window behind rather than hit a person.
D-The boy is not liable for the girl’s death because the actus reus and mens rea do not coincide in time.
E-The boy is not liable for the girl’s death because the application of unlawful force and the act causing the girl’s death are separate in time.
B is the correct option. Where the offence may be committed recklessly, there is no need to consider transferred malice as the boy is only required to foresee the risk of any harm to anyone.
Option A is wrong as the doctrine of transferred malice will apply. The boy’s intention to hit his classmate may be transferred to the girl as he commits the actus reus of assault against her and this is the same offence which he intends for the classmate. Option C is also wrong. Malice may be transferred from person to person, or from object to object, but not where the actus reus and mens rea relate to different types of offences. In this example, the boy commits assault but intends criminal damage.
Option D does not correctly describe the boy’s liability. Where a combination of events has led to the unlawful outcome, the courts have interpreted these consecutive events as a ‘single transaction’. This is a way of circumventing the requirement for the actus reus and the mens rea to coincide in time. Option E is wrong as the unlawful application of force (hitting the girl) and the eventual act causing death (dropping her) are part of the same sequence of events, so the fact there was a lapse in time between the two does not enable the boy to escape liability.
Two elements for recklessness
Two elements for recklessness (namely, the risk must be an unjustifiable one to take and the defendant must be aware of the risk but go on to take it).
A man is driving his car when it collides with the vehicle in front which has braked suddenly to avoid a pedestrian. The police are called and carry out a breath test to check whether the man has been drinking. He is shocked to discover that he is over the legal drink driving limit for alcohol and cannot understand why, given that he only drank apple juice at lunchtime. That evening, the man’s friend confesses that she added vodka to his drink as she did not realise he had driven to the restaurant. The man is charged with careless driving and driving with excess alcohol.
Which statement best describes the man’s likely criminal liability?
A-Guilty of both careless driving and driving with excess alcohol.
B-Guilty of careless driving, but not guilty of driving with excess alcohol.
C-Not guilty of careless driving, but guilty of driving with excess alcohol.
D-Not guilty of either careless driving or driving with excess alcohol.
E-Not guilty of careless driving and no charges may be brought for driving with excess alcohol where a drink has been spiked.
The correct answer is option C. The prosecution are unlikely to prove that the man was guilty of careless driving. To do so, they would need to prove that he was negligent, namely, that his driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. This is unlikely because the collision was caused when the vehicle in front braked suddenly without warning. For this reason, options A and B are wrong.
However, the man is likely to be convicted of driving with excess alcohol despite the fact he believed he was drinking apple juice and even if his drink was spiked because this is an offence of strict liability. Thus, options B and D are wrong. Option E is wrong as there is no rule that states a person may not be charged in circumstances where their drink was spiked.
A French driver is on holiday in England. The driver momentarily forgets that in England drivers must drive on the left. This is different to the position in France. The driver realises his mistake and moves to the left lane. No damage is caused to property or personal injury. The driver is stopped by the police.
Is the mens rea of negligence satisfied?
A-No, because the driver does not ordinarily drive in England.
B-No, because nothing happened as a result of the driving.
C-No, because the driver thought he was driving on the correct side of the road and therefore did not see any risk.
D-Yes, because only the manner of driving is relevant and not the state of mind of the driver.
E-Yes, because the driver was reckless to drive in England without being confident that he could always remember the correct side of the road.
Option D is correct. The accused is judged against the reasonable driver and the court is only concerned with the manner of the driving - not with their state of mind at the time.
Option A is wrong. The standard for the test of negligence is that of the reasonable person. The driver’s lack of experience of driving in England is irrelevant.
Option B is wrong. The consequences are irrelevant to the test of negligence.
Options C and E are wrong. The test of negligence is an objective one. The driver’s state of mind is irrelevant.
A student lent £10 to his friend for a meal when they went out one evening. Despite asking for the money repeatedly, the friend has not repaid it and the student is angry that the debt is still outstanding. He notices that the friend has a £10 note in his wallet and so, when the friend is not looking, he takes it, believing that he is legally entitled to do so.
Later that day, the student is sitting at a table in a workshop classroom with three others. He looks down and sees a £20 note under the table. The student knows there was nothing there when he arrived in the classroom as he had dropped his pen and picked it up from under the table. The student says nothing to the other three who are sitting at the table and quickly pockets the £20 note.
Which of the following best describes whether the student is likely to be dishonest in relation to the £10 and £20 notes so that he satisfies this aspect of the mens rea of theft?
A-He is not dishonest in relation to the £10 or the £20 notes.
B-He is not dishonest in relation to the £10 note; but is likely to be dishonest in relation to the £20 note.
C-He may be dishonest in relation to the £10 note; but not in relation to the £20 note.
D-He may be dishonest in relation to both the £10 and the £20 notes.
E-He is not dishonest in relation to the £10 note or the £20 note as there is no information about the legal owner on the property.
Option B is the best answer. Under s.2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, a defendant is not to be regarded as dishonest if they believe they have the right in law to the property. This would cover the situation where a debt is owed; and here, the student is owed £10 by his friend. Furthermore, a defendant is not dishonest where they believe the owner cannot be found by taking reasonable steps – s.2(1)(c). However, this exception does not apply here as the student knows the £20 must belong to one of the other three on the table.
Option A is wrong as the student may be dishonest in relation to the £20. Option C is wrong as he is unlikely to be dishonest in relation to the £10; and option D is wrong as the student may not be dishonest in relation to the £10 note. Option E is wrong as it is irrelevant whether the owner is identified on the property.
Quick Q:
A gangster plans to kill his rival as revenge for selling drugs on his territory. He buys a gun and hides in a doorway at the entrance to the apartment block where the rival lives. He waits for the rival to return home. When the gangster sees the rival walking across the open area in front of the building, he fires the gun. The gangster misses and hits a metal bin just behind, denting it. In his police interview, the gangster accepts that there was a risk of hitting property but did not care if he did so.
The gangster fires again, but just at that moment, a teenager riding on an electric scooter passes in front of the rival. The bullet, which was meant for the rival, hits the teenager in the head and kills him instantly.
What statement best describes the gangster’s criminal liability?
The gangster is guilty of murder as his intention to kill the rival is transferred to the teenager; and guilty of criminal damage because he is reckless as to damaging property belonging to another.
C is the correct option. The doctrine of transferred malice applies and so the gangster is guilty of murder of the teenager. His intention to kill the rival is transferred to the actual victim, namely the teenager and combines with the actus reus (the death) to complete the offence. However, transferred malice does not apply from person to object, so the gangster cannot be liable for criminal damage to the bin on this basis. This does not mean the gangster escapes liability entirely, as criminal damage may be committed recklessly.
Option A is wrong because his intention to kill, the mens rea, is transferred from the rival to the actual victim, namely the teenager, and combines with the actus reus (the death) to complete the offence. However, transferred malice does not apply where the mens rea is different so the gangster cannot be liable for criminal damage to the bin on this basis.
Option B is wrong because the doctrine of transferred malice does apply where the mens rea is the same, and so the gangster is liable for the death of the teenager. It is, however, correct the doctrine does not apply where the mens rea is different, so he is not guilty of criminal damage on this basis.
Option D is wrong because the gangster is guilty of murder as he intended to kill the rival and his mens rea can be transferred to the teenager. The second part of the statement is correct because the gangster admitted that he was aware there was a risk of damaging property.
The second part of the statement in option E is wrong as the gangster is liable for criminal damage on the basis of his recklessness.
Quick Q:
A man plans to kill his partner as revenge for leaving him and taking their children with her. They arrange for the partner to return to the man’s house to collect her belongings. The partner comes with a friend as she is afraid of the man. The man waits just inside the hallway and when his partner walks in, he rushes towards her with a large knife. He misses his partner and the knife plunges into the man’s door leaving a deep gash. The man pulls out the knife and launches himself at the partner again, but she manages to get out of the way and the man stabs her friend, who is standing just behind. The friend dies from loss of blood from the stab wound.
What statement best describes the man’s criminal liability?
The man is guilty of murder of the friend as his mens rea may be transferred from person to person; but not guilty of criminal damage as the property does not belong to another.
Option E is correct. The doctrine of transferred malice applies from person to person and so the man is guilty of murder of the friend. His intention to kill his partner is transferred to the actual victim, namely the friend, and combines with the actus reus (the death) to complete the offence. He is not guilty of criminal damage because, although the knife causes a deep gash in the door, it does not belong to another (it is the man’s own property).
Quick Q:
A teenager who belongs to a gang is told to shoot a rival gang member (‘the rival’). He lies in wait for the rival and takes aim as the rival walks into view. The teenager does not notice a schoolgirl who is walking past at the same time, and accidentally shoots her dead instead.
The teenager panics and fires another shot towards his rival, hoping to kill him this time. However, he misses again. The bullet hits the side of a nearby parked car and dents the door.
How does the doctrine of transferred malice apply to the teenager’s criminal liability?
The teenager is guilty of murder as his malice can be transferred from the rival to the schoolgirl; but not criminal damage of the car as the malice cannot be transferred here.
The correct option is C. The teenager has the ‘malice’, here the intention to kill the rival, and this may be transferred to the unintended victim – the schoolgirl. This combines with the actus reus of murder (the schoolgirl is dead) to complete the offence. However, the doctrine of transferred malice only applies where the actus reus of the offence committed is the same type of crime as the defendant originally had in mind. For this reason, the intention to kill (the teenager’s mens rea of murder) cannot be transferred to the dent to the car door (the actus reus of criminal damage).
Option A is wrong as, although the teenager is guilty of murder due to transferred malice, they are not guilty of criminal damage to the car door for the reasons stated above.
Option B is wrong as it incorrectly states that the teenager is not guilty of murder but guilty of criminal damage.
Option D is wrong as the teenager is guilty of murder due to the doctrine of transferred malice.
Option E is wrong. Although the statement correctly concludes that the teenager is guilty of murder but not criminal damage, the reason provided is wrong as transferred malice can apply to the property offences.
A man has pleaded not guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm against the victim who suffered bruising after an assault. The prosecution state that the man intended to cause actual bodily harm to the victim. The man denies this and insists that he only meant to smack the victim and not cause any harm. The man accepts that he did cause bruising to the victim.
Which of the following best describes whether the defendant has satisfied the mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
A-The mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires that the defendant intended to cause actual bodily harm which on the facts he has.
selected
B-The mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires that the defendant was reckless as to whether he caused actual bodily harm, and on the facts, he did cause actual bodily harm.
C-The mens rea for actual bodily harm requires that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the assault and on the facts, he did intend the assault.
D-The mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires that the defendant was reckless as to the assault and on the facts, he was reckless.
E-The mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires that the defendant must commit an assault which causes the victim to suffer actual bodily harm.
Option C is the correct answer. The mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires that the man intended the assault (infliction of unlawful personal force) and not actual harm, and on the facts, he did intend the infliction of unlawful personal force as he wanted to give the victim as “smack”.
Option A is wrong because the mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm does not require that the defendant intended to cause actual bodily harm, merely intend or be reckless as to the assault itself, and on the facts, he did intend the assault.
Option B is wrong because the mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm does not require that the man was reckless as to actual bodily harm, but rather that he was reckless or intended the assault itself.
Option D is wrong because although recklessness is part of the mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm on these facts it is irrelevant because the man intended the assault.
Option E is incorrect because this is the actus reus of assault occasioning actual bodily harm rather than the mens rea.
A woman sets fire to her factory in order to claim the insurance money. Unfortunately, the manager has gone into work very early to complete the stock take and dies in the fire. The woman is horrified to find that she has killed the manager but accepts that she did not check the building before setting light to it. She also admits she is aware the manager does occasionally work early in the morning and, further, that she was aware at the time there was a slight risk this may be the case, but she cannot recall him having been in the factory as early as 5am before.
Which of the following best describes the woman’s mens rea for the manager’s death?
A-The woman has direct intent to kill the manager.
B-The woman indirectly intends to kill the manager.
C-The woman is reckless as to causing the death of the manager as a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of death due to her actions.
D-The woman is reckless as to causing the death of the manager as she foresaw the risk of death as a consequence of her actions.
E-The woman has no liability for the death of her manager.
Option D is correct. For recklessness, the risk must be unjustified and it is here, as there is no social utility in setting fire to premises. An awareness of even the smallest risk of causing death would be sufficient to satisfy the mens rea. Although the manager rarely goes in early, he does on occasion and the defendant did not check the factory was empty.
Option A is wrong as the woman’s direct intent – her aim or purpose – was financial and she had no desire to kill the manager. Option B is also wrong. For indirect intent, the consequence (the death) must be virtually certain and this objective test may be satisfied. However, it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove that the woman appreciated this. Her evidence is that she cannot recall the manager having been in the factory as early as 5am previously.
Option C is wrong as the test for recklessness is subjective and so what the reasonable person would have foreseen is irrelevant. Option E is wrong as the woman is criminally liable for the manager’s death.
