mens Rea Flashcards
What is a men’s rea
Mental element of an offence, each offence has its own mens rea execpt offences of strict liability
What are the 4 main instances when the D is not to blame for the consequences of their actions
1.Children under the age of criminal responsibility (10)
- people who are insane , however if decided that they committed unlawful act while insane, they can be detained in a hospital under the mental health act 1983
- Person may not be liable for some involuntary acts e.g R v M
- man was punched and fell onto a woman who died, man was not convinced as falling was an involuntary act caused by the punch - Person is in control of the act but doesn’t have required mens rea for the offence
-e. If a man takes a coat off a rack thinking it was his, not liable for theft as didn’t intent to - Some offences where even though the D had the necessary mental state for the offence they aren’t to be blamed e.g
-self defence or defence of another
- duress where the D had been threatened with death or serious injury if they didn’t commit the crime
What is intention snd which case defined it
Mohan 1975
R v Mohan
- direct intent
= a strong desire to bring about something
case explaining oblique intention (indirect)
- R v Woolin
=
person doesn’t directly aim for a specific consequence but the result is a virtual certainty of their actions
subjective recklessness
- lower level of mens rea than intention
- its the taking of an unjustifiable risk
- proven that the D had knew the risk but decided to take it anyway
whats the case for subjective/ normal recklessness
r v Cunningham
- Foreseeing a risk
- Consciously deciding to take that risk
what is direct intention
- a strong desire to bring out a consequence
from the case R v Mohan -
- decision or aim to bring about a particular consequence, even if the defendant does not necessarily desire that consequence.
what is oblique intention ( indirect)
where the defendant doesnt desire the consequence but foresees it as virtually certain
R v Woollin (1998) – The court held that a jury may find intention if a consequence is a virtually certain result of the defendant’s actions, and the defendant realizes that it is a virtually certain consequence.
gross negligence manslaughter -
- all the elements of negligence must be complete ( duty, breavh and damage ) and must be proved
- jury must find the conduct of the D was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission
in what cases is there no mens rea needed for the actus reus
- strict liability cases
what case represents not needing a mens rea- even when they were blameless
- pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain ltd
what is due diligence
where the defendent has done all that was within his power not to commit an offence
what case shows when someone took all the steps to prevent it but are still guilty and doesnt need a mens rea
Harrow London borough council v shah
.
strict liability overall
- proved to have done actus reus
-must be voluntary act on their part - no need to prove mens rea for actus reus
- no due diligence offence is avaliable -
- defence of mistake isnt avaiable
