Mens Rea

Question 1

Ashworth

Answer 1

Direct Intention

Intention is direct when it is a person’s aim, objective or purpose

Affirmed in DPP v Murray

Question 2

DPP v Douglas and Hayes

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

DPP v Hull

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Hyam v DPP (HOL)

Answer 4

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

Question 5

R v Hancock and Shankland

Answer 5

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

Question 6

R v Moloney

Answer 6

Indirect Intention

Overturned Hyam - mens rea is not the forsight of consequences but the intention

Question 7

R v Nedrick

Answer 7

Indirect Intention

poured petrol into letter box - child died

was there a virtual certainty that the harm would occur

Question 8

R v Woolin

Answer 8

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

Question 9

R v Matthews

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

R v Cunningham

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Caldwell

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

Elliot v C

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

DPP v Murray

Answer 13

Irish Approach to Recklessness

Murder of a Guard not in uniform - left the Irish Position unclear

Question 14

DPP v Cagney

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Clifford v DPP

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

DPP v Murray

Answer 16

Strict Liability

There is always a presumption that crimes require a menas rea element

Question 17

DPP v Ebbs

Answer 17

Strict Liability

‘the norm of criminal offences is the establishment of mens rea’

Question 18

Maguire v Shannon Regional Fisheries Board

Answer 18

Strict Liability

1. The object of Legislation

Pipe burst and polluted water - SL applied to promote vigilance to polluters

Question 19

Shannon Regional Fisheries Board v Cavan County Council

Answer 19

Strict Liability

1. Object of the Legislation

Plaintiff dumped sewage into river - SL offence

Question 20

Sweet v Parsley

Answer 20

Strict Liability

2. Is the offence truly criminal or regulatory

landlady, police found cannabis in her house – no knowledge - not SL - criminal in nature

Question 21

Stephen Bennet v DPP & AG

Answer 21

Strict Liability

2. Is the offence truly criminal or regulatory

Man jumped up and down on water meter when it was being installed.

Under Water Services Act – the court held the offence of obstructing the
exercise of a water service authority representative in their work is guilty of anoffence.
Court held this was a SL offence.

Question 22

CC v Ireland

Answer 22

Strict Liability

3. Legislative Intent

SC it was held s1(1) Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 - unlawful

This was unconstitutional because of the severity of the offence

Question 23

Fagan v metropolitan police commissioner

Answer 23

Continuing Act Doctrine

man rolled over police man’s foot – the actus reus – unknowingly, however once he became aware of this and did not remove his car, he
had the mental element of assault causing harm

Question 24

Kaitmaiki v R

Answer 24

Continuing Act Doctrine

sexual intercourse is a continuing act – once consent is withdrawn, if sex
continues it is rape.