Mens Rea

Question 1

R v Latimer (1886) - important

Answer 1

Transferred malice: where D has the mens rea for an offence against one person but another is actually harmed. In this case a belt rebounded off one person and hit another. The malice is transferred to the actual victim.

Question 2

Fagan V Met Police Commissioner (1986) - important

Answer 2

If the actus reus is a continuing act (eg keeping a car parked on someone’s foot) there is liability as long as the mens rea was present at some point while the act continued.

Question 3

R v Mohan (1976) - important

Answer 3

Direct intent is ‘a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence’

Question 4

R v Woollin (1998) - VERY important

Answer 4

Oblique intent is when the prohibited consequence was a ‘virtual certainty’ as a result of D’s Actions and D appreciated that this was the case. This means intention is tested both objectively and subjectively.

Question 5

R v Cunningham (1957) - important

Answer 5

Recklessness means that D knew there was a risk of the prohibited consequence and continued with their actions anyway. It is tested subjectively

Question 6

R v Larsonneur (1933) - important

Answer 6

Absolute liability offences (eg being in the UK illegally) do not require any mens rea at all from the defendant, So D can be convicted even if the actus reus wasn’t voluntary.

Question 7

Callow tillstone (1900) - important

Answer 7

Strict liability offences involve little/no fault from the Defendant, and there is no defence of due diligence ( eg butcher selling bad meat even though a vet said it was fine)

Question 8

R v Pembliton (1874)

Answer 8

Malica cannot be transferred from a person to an object or vice versa, e.g. trying to hit a person with a stone but instead hitting a window.

Question 9

R v Church (1965)

Answer 9

In order to satisfy the coincidence rule, the AR and MR can be combined in a series of acts, e.g. knocking V out, thinking she was dead and later putting her in a river causing her to drown.

Question 10

R v Woollin (1998)

Answer 10

It did not meet the intention level of MR when D threw a 3-month-old baby towards a pram and the baby hit the wall and dies, because D did not appreciated that V’s death was a virtual certainty. D’s conviction was reduced to manslaughter

Question 11

R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Answer 11

A jury can find intention if both the ‘virtual certainty’ tests from woollin are met but they don’t have to.

Question 12

R v Cunningham (1957)

Answer 12

The bar for recklessness was not reached when D tore a gas metre from the wall of an empty house causing a gas leak that injured v, because D didn’t realise there was a risk of injury.

Question 13

R v Savage (1991)

Answer 13

The word ‘maliciously’ in acts of parliament means that recklessness is enough for MR.

Question 14

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)

Answer 14

Strict Liability offences involve little to no fault of the D even if D didn’t try to commit the offence (e.g. a newsagent who trained staff not to sell lottery tickets to underage children.

Question 15

Gammon LTD v Attorney-General of Hong Kong (1984)

Answer 15

All offences are presumed not to be crimes of SL is is presumed MR is required. An offence is more likely to be is if
The statute makes it clear
if it is not truly criminal
if it is an issue of social concern
or if making it SL will help the enforcement of the law

Question 16

B v DPP (2000)

Answer 16

The more serious the offence the greeter weight to be attached to the presumption of MR. More serious offences are less likely to be strict liability.