mens rea

Question 1

mens rea

Answer 1

mental element of an offence
- each offence has its own mental element, except for offences of strict liability which can be committed with a voluntary actus reus alone

Question 2

briefly explain how there can be more than one mens era element in an offence such as S1 of Theft Act 1968

Answer 2

a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.

Question 3

give the 4 levels of intention (from highest to lowest) which need to be proved to satisfy the mens era of a crime

Answer 3

1) direct intention
2) indirect (oblique) intention
3) subjective recklessness
4) negligence

Question 4

direct intention

Answer 4

a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not (their intention is usually very clear)

Question 5

briefly explain R v Mohan (1975) to support the idea of direct intention

Answer 5

defendant refused to stop when policeman signalled and drove towards him.
therefore the intention to scare or injure him was there.

Question 6

indirect/oblique intention

Answer 6

the defendants main aim is not the prohibited consequence, however they realised that in achieving their aim they would cause those consequence.

Question 7

briefly explain R v Hancock & Shankland (1986) to show the idea of indirect/oblique and direct intention

Answer 7

defendant trying to stop victims car, so defendant pushes a concrete block from bridge onto road.
indirect: driver of car is hit by concrete and killed. Not the intended result.
direct: concrete hits road and forces car to stop.

Question 8

briefly explain the ‘foresight of consequences’ the court looks at for cases of indirect intention

Answer 8

first rule of this is it’s not the same as intention but can be evidence of intention, but only where the harm caused as a result of the defendants actions was a virtual certainty and the defendant realised this.