MENS REA

Question 1

what cases made the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea questionable? (2)

Answer 1

Church (1965)
Thabo Meli v K (1954)

Question 2

what is an example of a continuing act? (1)

Answer 2

Fagan v R (1986)

Question 3

what occurred in Fagan (1986)? (2)

Answer 3

The defendant was asked to pull over for questioning and in doing so ran over the police officer’s foot, he refused to move even after being told of what had happened. he was found guilty of assaulting a police officer in execution of his duty.

Question 4

what occurred in the Thabo Meli v R (1954) case? (2)

Answer 4

the defendant’s attacked a man and after believing that he was dead, pushed his body off the edge of a cliff. The man did not die from the attack but died from exposure after being pushed off the cliff. The defendant’s were found guilty of murder even though the actus reus and mens rea were not present at the same time.

Question 5

what is a continuing act? (2)

Answer 5

a continuing act is when an actus reus is being committed and somewhere within the time period of the start and finish the offender gets the necessary mens rea. The two coincide and the defendant will be found guilty.

Question 6

what is transferred malice? (1)

Answer 6

the defendant can be found guilty if he or she intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim.

Question 7

what is meant by coincidence of actus reus and mens rea? (1)

Answer 7

in order for an offence to occur both the actus reus and the mens rea must occur at the same time.

Question 8

what occurred in the church (1965) case? (2)

Answer 8

The defendant had an argument with a women and ended up knocking her out. he believed that he had killed her and unsuccessfully tried to bring her back. he put her in a river to which she drowned from. the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter.

Question 9

what occurred in the case of Latimer (1886)? (2)

Answer 9

The defendant aimed a blow at a man in a pub, the belt bounced off the man and hit a women in the face. he was charged with assault against a women.

Question 10

what occurred in the Gnango (2011) case? (2)

Answer 10

Gnango and another man had a shoot out on an open street, the other man shot and killed a passer-by. Gnango was charged with the women’s murder, the court of appeal quashed this conviction but it was later upheld by the supreme court.

Question 11

How can a person be negligent and therefore criminally liable? (2)

Answer 11

Statutory offences such as S3 of the road traffic act 1985
manslaughter by gross negligence (adamoko 1994)

Question 12

what case shows transference of malice? (2)

Answer 12

Latimer (1886)
Gnango (2011)

Question 13

what time period was objective recklessness accepted? (1)

Answer 13

1982-2003

Question 14

what is the law for recklessness now? (1)

Answer 14

any offence that has allowed the mens rea of recklessness should now base their principles off of subjective recklessness.

Question 15

what is general malice? (1)

Answer 15

the offender has no specific intended victim. e.g terrorism.

Question 16

what is objective recklessness? (1)

Answer 16

objective recklessness is the idea that if the normal adult saw the risk then the offender can be found guilty of recklessness even if they did not realise the risk.

Question 17

in the past, what were the levels of recklessness? (2)

Answer 17

objective
subjective

Question 18

What case shows the unfairness of objective recklessness? (1)

Answer 18

Elliott v C (1983)

Question 19

How can a person be found to be negligent? (1)

Answer 19

if they have failed to meet the standards of the reasonable person.

Question 20

what occurred in the Elliott v C (1983) case? (2)

Answer 20

the defendant, a 14-year old girl with learning difficulties, did not realise the risk of her actions when she started a fire. she was convicted anyway.

Question 21

what case confirmed the principles of subjective recklessness? (1)

Answer 21

R v Savage and parmenter (1992)

Question 22

what case did objective recklessness stem from? (1)

Answer 22

Caldwell (1981)

Question 23

What does s8 of the criminal justice act 1967 say? (3)

Answer 23

‘a court or jury , in determining whether a person has committed an offence - a) shall 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 those actions; b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

Question 24

How has the law reformed on intention? (2)

Answer 24

‘intention’ is not defined by any parliamentary statue but the law commission has stated in the draft of the criminal code (1989) that intent should be based on a person acting ‘intentionally’.

Question 25

what occurred the cunningnham (1957) case?(3)

Answer 25

the defendant tore a gas meter from the wall in order to steal money, this caused a gas leak in the neighbouring house (which had effects on a women) he was charged under s23 of the offences against persons act 1861 but it was quashed as he did not know that this could cause a risk.

Question 26

what occurred in the Caldwell (1981) case? (2)

Answer 26

The defendant set fire to a hotel but put it out before it could cause serious damage. he was charged under s1 of the criminal damage act even though he did not see the risk of his actions.

Question 27

what case does subjective recklessness stem from? (1)

Answer 27

Cunningnham (1957)

Question 28

what offences can recklessness be sufficient for the mens rea? (3)

Answer 28

assault and battery
assault occasioning actual bodily harm
maliciously wounding (s20 of the offences against persons act 1861)

Question 29

what changed after the Woolin (1998) case? (3)

Answer 29

the court held that using the structure of Nedrick was sufficient but use the word ‘find’ instead of ‘infer’
“a result foreseen as virtually certain is an intended result”
suggests that the HOL in Woolin saw recklessness as the same as intent (Moloney said that this was not the case)

Question 30

what is subjective recklessness? (1)

Answer 30

the offender sees the risk but takes it anyway.

Question 31

what is meant by natural and probable consequences? (1)

Answer 31

it is important to use both words in the definition as an event can be natural but not a probably consequence.

Question 32

what is a summary of the Matthews and Alleyne (2003) case? (3)

Answer 32

The defendant threw the victim off a bridge even after the victim had said multiple times that he could not swim. the defendant watched as he swam towards the river bank but left shortly later. the victim drowned and the defendant was charged with murder as he had not intended to help the victim.

Question 33

what are some examples of how the courts struggle with intention where foreseeable consequence is involved? (4)

Answer 33

-the two interpretations in Woolin
-the changes made by Woolin
-natural and probable consequences
-difficulties in Jurors applying test after Moloney

Question 34

what questions arose from Nedrick (1986) case? (2)

Answer 34

‘how probable was the consequence that arose from the defendants conduct?’
‘did the defendant foresee that consequence?’

Question 35

what is a summary of the Nedrick (1986) case? (2)

Answer 35

the defendant had a grudge against a women so poured paraffin oil through her letter box and dropped a match. as a result the house caught fire which killed a child. the defendant was found guilty of murder which was later quashed to manslaughter.

Question 36

what is a summary of the Moloney (1985) case? (3)

Answer 36

the defendant and his step father were drunk. they were having a competition to see who could empty and reload their gun the fastest. the defendant shot his step father from accidentally pulling the trigger after his step father said that he didn’t have the guts to do it. the defendant was found guilty of murder but was later quashed.

Question 37

what are some examples of cases that show foreseeable consequences? (4)

Answer 37

Moloney (1985)
Nedrick (1986)
Woolin (1998)
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Question 38

what is a summary of the woolin (1998) case? (2)

Answer 38

the defendant through his 3 month old baby into a pram that was 5 feet away, as a result the baby suffered severe head injuries and died shortly later. the court held that the consequence of his actions was ‘virtually certain’ therefore the jury found intent.

Question 39

what is an example of the definition of the word intent? (2)

Answer 39

s18of the offences against person act 1861. says that a person must case wounding or grievous bodily harm.

Question 40

what is an example of indirect intent? (1)

Answer 40

Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Question 41

what is meant by ‘foresight of consequences’? (2)

Answer 41

if the defendants aim was not the prohibited consequence in achieving the other action he must have foresaw that their was a risk of the prohibited consequence occurring. he could be found guilty.

Question 42

which act covers the foresight of consequences? (1)

Answer 42

s8 of the criminal justice act 1967

Question 43

what occurred in the case of Hankcock and Shankland (1986)? (2)

Answer 43

two men were on a miners strike and decided to throw bricks off a bridge to stop other miners going to work, as a result one of the bricks hit a taxi driver, killing him. the defendants were found guilty of manslaughter.

Question 44

what is mens rea? (1)

Answer 44

the mental element of an offence.

Question 45

what case defined the word intention? (1)

Answer 45

Mohan (1975)

Question 46

what is indirect intent also known as? (1)

Answer 46

blique intent

Question 47

what is indirect intent? (1)

Answer 47

the offenders aim was not the prohibited consequence. it was not his aim or desire.

Question 48

what is direct intent? (1)

Answer 48

the offenders aim, purpose and desire was the prohibited consequence.

Question 49

define intention. (1)

Answer 49

the decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power (the prohibited consequence) whether the accused desired that consequence of his actions or not.

Question 50

when does the presence of mens rea not apply? (1)

Answer 50

strict liability offences.