Mens Rea

Question 1

What is mens rea?

Answer 1

Guilty mind - did D intend to cause offence or through recklessness

Question 2

What are the levels of mean rea?

Answer 2

Direct intent
Oblique intent
Subjective Recklessness
Objective recklessness
Negligence

Question 3

Case for men’s rea?

Answer 3

R v Clarke - a woman transferred shopping from basket to bag before paying. She was able to show she had depression so was suffering from absent mindedness. Lacked mental element and was acquitted.

Question 4

What is intention? ( men’s Rea )

Answer 4

Mohan defined intention as “a decision to bring about, within the accused power, the prohibited consequence whether they desired that or not”
Motive isn’t the same as and has no relevance to intention

Question 5

What is direct intention?

Answer 5

D intends the specific consequence to occur.

Question 6

What is oblique intent?

Answer 6

D intends one thing but actual consequence is another. Applies to murder where D has no aim to kill.
Will be liable if he realised death were a virtual consequence of his actions.

Question 7

What is foresight of consequences?

Answer 7

If D forsaw consequence he can be guilty - even if he didn’t intend to.

Question 8

What is the case for foresight of consequences?

Answer 8

Moloney - D and step father drunk and were seeing who could reload a shotgun the fastest. Stepfather said he “didn’t have guts to pull the trigger”. D shot and killed him. D says “didn’t aim just pulled trigger” was convicted of murder but it was quashed it.

Question 9

What did HOL and Lord Bridge say about Moloney?

Answer 9

Foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention, not intention.

Question 10

What did Lord Bridge say about Moloney?

Answer 10

In a murder trial a juror should be asked to consider 2 questions :
Was death a natural consequence of Ds actions?
Did D foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his actions?
( Moloney guidelines )

Question 11

What is the issue with the Moloney guidelines?

Answer 11

No mention of probable. In S.8 of CJA 1967 it used the word probable while Lord bridge only says natural. This was sorted in Hancock and Shankland.

Question 12

What happens in Hancock and Shankland 1986?

Answer 12

Miners on strike pushed rock off bridge to stop another miner going to work. Killed taxi driver. Judge told jury to use Moloney guidelines. Convicted of murder but COA quashed and HOL confirmed.

Question 13

What did Lord Scarman state about the Moloney guidelines?

Answer 13

They are misleading and unsafe. They need to reference probability and an explain that the greater the probability of a consequence ➡️ the more likley a consequence was to be foreseen ➡️ the more likely it was intended.

Question 14

What was the next case after Hancock and Shankland to help clear up the Moloney guidelines?

Answer 14

Nedrick 1986

Question 15

What happened in Nedrick?

Answer 15

D poured paraffin through the letter box of a woman who he had a grudge against and set it in fire. A child died.
D was convicted of murder but COA quashed it for manslaughter.

Question 16

What did COA say about Nedrick?

Answer 16

Jurors had to ask themselves 2 questions :
How probable was the consequence which resulted from Ds voluntary action?
Did D foresee the consequence?

Question 17

What did Lord CJ say about Nedrick?

Answer 17

Jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer necessary intention unless they feel sure the death was a virtual certainty and D knew that would happen.

Question 18

What is the next case after Nedrick and what happened?

Answer 18

Woolin - D threw his 3 month old baby at a pram against a wall 3-4 feet away. Baby died.

Question 19

What did courts say about Woollin?

Answer 19

Court ruled that the consequence was a vertical certainty and D must have been foreseen this. Where the jury was satisfied with the two points, there was evidence on which the jury could find intention. Lord Steyn stated that ( what Lord CJ said )

Question 20

What is the final case after Woolin and what happened?

Answer 20

Matthew and Alleyne - Ds dropped victim 25 feet from a bridge into a deep river. V told them he couldn’t swim. They watched him doggy paddle to the side but left without seeing if he made it. V drowned.

Question 21

What did courts say about Matthew and Alleyne?

Answer 21

Judge directed the jury that Ds intention to kill could be proved by direct intention or by that it was a vertical certainty together with the fact they didn’t attempt to rescue V.
COA said judge had been wrong to say appreciation of a virtual certainty definitely meant intention but upheld conviction as if the jury thought Ds appreciated virtual certainty of death they should be liable.

Question 22

What is subjective recklessness?

Answer 22

A lower level of men’s Rea than intention - D knows there’s a chance of consequence happening but takes risk anyway.

Question 23

Case for subjective recklessness?

Answer 23

Cunningham - D tore a gas meter off a wall in an empty house to steal money from it. The gas affected the next door neighbour. He was charged with s23 of the OAPA 1861 - maliciously administering a toxic thing. Not guilty as he didn’t know he had taken a risk or meant to cause harm.

Question 24

Recklessness is sufficient for the means Rea in which offences?

Answer 24

Assault and battery
Assault occasioning ABH
Malicious wounding

Question 25

What is negligence?

Answer 25

Fail to meet the standards of a reasonable person. D will be guilty as he didn’t act as a normal person. What D thought it intended doesn’t matter. Much lower level of fault. Not widely used and only type is gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 26

What is the complete case guideline of foresight of consequences?

Answer 26

Moloney - Hancock and Shankland - Nedrick - Woolin - Matthew and Alleyne