mens rea Flashcards
mens rea
guilty mind
subjective recklessness
the defendant must foresee that there is a risk of the outcome occurring and still takes that risk
r v cunningham
d was not reckless as he did not realise the risk of the outcome occurring.
r v r and g
d’s was not reckless as they did not realise the risk of the outcome occurring.
direct intent
d has the Desire, Aim or Purpose to bring about the prohibited outcome
r v mohan
d accelerated sharply at police officer instead of stopping.
held: d had intention as it was his aim or desire to bring about the prohibited consequence
oblique intent
the prohibited outcome is virtually certain, and d realises this.
r v woolin
held: d had intention as the prohibited consequence was a virtual certainty and he must have realised this
gross negligence
r v adomako
negligence so bad as to be judged criminal
transferred malice
when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, d is still held responsible.
r v latimer
transferred malice case, was meant to hit a with belt but hit b instead
mens rea was transferred from the intented v to the actual v
r v mitchell
d was held liable for manslaughter. his mens rea in respect of the intended v (the man) was transferred to the actual v (the old woman)
r v pemblition
d threw stone to stop fight, but broke window
d’s mens rea couldn’t be transferred to property as this is a different type of crime
criticisms
- whether oblique intent is a type of intention, or if it describes the state of mind from which the jury can find intention
- academics such as Horder argue that recklessness should be judged objectively, as defendants should be liable for even the unforeseen results of their conduct
