Mens Rea Flashcards
Intention, Recklessness and Strict Liability
Ashworth
Direct Intention
Intention is direct when it is a person’s aim, objective or purpose
Affirmed in DPP v Murray
DPP v Douglas and Hayes
Intention
The Courts have been slow to define intention –
Court found a principle and presumption to determine intention:
Reckless principle – more reckless a person more likely he intended to cause result.
Presumption of Intention – every man is taken to intend the natural and probable consequences of
his own acts. This is evidence from which intention can be inferred.
In considering both – establish beyond a reasonable doubt an actual intention to cause result –
prosecution must prove presumption to intend natural and probable consequences of act has not
been rebutted.
DPP v Hull
Indirect Intention
Man shot at closed door - killed someone
for thisintention to be direct - it must be the natural and probable cause of the action - can be rebutted here
Hyam v DPP (HOL)
Indirect Intention
If a person exposes the victim to serious harm or death without a lawful excuse - they will be convicted of murder as if they intended it
R v Hancock and Shankland
Indirect Intention
Held Moloney as misleadign - introduces probability element - if the consequnces is the probable consequence - the more probable the consequence the more likely the intention
R v Moloney
Indirect Intention
Overturned Hyam - mens rea is not the forsight of consequences but the intention
R v Nedrick
Indirect Intention
poured petrol into letter box - child died
was there a virtual certainty that the harm would occur
R v Woolin
Indirect Intention
Man threw baby on floor out of anger
the jury may only find intention where seriou sharm or death was a virtual certainty of the accused’s actions
R v Matthews
Indirect Intention
where the accused had acted deliberately with the appreciation of a virtual certainty of death this did not per se constitute an intention to kill, however it was evidence from which the jury could infer an intention to kill.
R v Cunningham
Subjective Recklessness
Accused tore gas meter to steal money inside which leaked gas into
neighbour’s garden
Accused must have been actually aware of the risk but continued with his actions anyways.
Caldwell
Objective Recklessness
Accused set fire in hotel when drunk – said risk of harming anyone never came to mind
An accused is responsible for obvious risks from his conduct, whether or not he was
actually aware of them.
Elliot v C
Objective v Subjective Recklessness
a mentally disabled girl set fire to shed. Even though she did not understand how her acts
could have such consequences, applying Caldwell the court held an ordinary person would have
foreseen the risk so she is criminally liable.
DPP v Murray
Irish Approach to Recklessness
Murder of a Guard not in uniform - left the Irish Position unclear
DPP v Cagney
Irish Approach to Recklessness
Accused must have foreseen the risk that his conduct would bring
about the relevant result but elected to proceed with his conduct regardless.
Clifford v DPP
Irish Approach to Recklessness
For an accused to be reckless, it must
occur to the mind of accused that his conduct will bring about the consequence impugned but, nonetheless, he proceeds to act.
