Mens rea

Question 1

What are the 3 parts to Mens rea?

Answer 1

1. Intention (Highest form of Mens rea).
2. Recklessness (lower form of Mens rea than intent).
3. Gross Negligence.

Question 2

What are the 2 types of intention?

Answer 2

Direct and oblique (indirect) intent.

Question 3

What is foresight of consequence?

Answer 3

When D has an aim and in achieving this aim causes other consequences but these are not his main aim. Consequence must be a virtual certainty and the D must realise this. This Mens rea is only evidence towards intention.

Question 4

Case example for virtual certainty?

Answer 4

Hancock & Shankland (1986)

Ds wanted to frighten a co-worker so that he would not break a strike by
going to work.

They pushed two concrete blocks off a bridge onto the road he was
travelling along in a taxi.

The driver of the taxi was killed.

Although the probability of harm occurring was very high, this was still
not sufficient to establish the intent of murder as the
outcome was not a virtual certainty so they were found guilty of
Manslaughter instead.

Question 5

Case to show oblique intent?

Answer 5

R v Moloney (1985)

M and his step father got drunk at a party. They decided to see who
could load a shotgun quickest.

M won and his stepfather taunted him for not having the courage to
pull the trigger. M pulled the trigger and shot and killed his step
father.

Oblique intent, as there was no evidence that M specifically intended
the death of his stepfather.

So M was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Question 6

What is subjective recklessness?

Answer 6

Where D realises the risk but decides to take it anyway.

Question 7

Case example for subjective recklessness?

Answer 7

R v Cunningham (1957)

D removed the gas metre from an unoccupied house in order
to steal the money from it.

This caused a gas leak which seeped into the house next
door.

He was charged with “maliciously administering a noxious
thing so as to endanger life”.

He was found not guilty , as he could only be guilty if he
realised that there was a risk that the gas could affect
others.

Question 8

What is the test for recklessness?

Answer 8

Substantial risk test.

Question 9

Case example for substantial risk test?

Answer 9

R v Woollin (1998)

D threw his baby across the room at a pram that was up against the wall on
the other side of the room. The baby suffered head injuries and died. D
admitted throwing the baby out of frustration and said he knew that the
baby’s head had hit something hard, but denied intending to cause him
serious injury or death.

A result that is seen as a virtual certainty is an intended result. Death was
not a virtual certainty.

Judge confused matters not sufficient that there is merely a substantial risk. This is the test of recklessness and not intention.

Question 10

What is transferred malice?

Answer 10

The doctrine of malice allows D to be guilty of a crime where the Mens rea of the crime is the same as the Actus reus of the crime – but for a different victim.

Question 11

Case example for transferred malice?

Answer 11

R v Latimer (1886)

Following an argument in the pub D took off his belt and aimed his blow at
A whom the belt struck lightly. During the same blow the belt then
accidentally struck B and wounded her severely.

D was guilty of unlawfully wounding the second victim on the basis of
transferred malice. Transferred malice can only be present when the
intended crime and accidental crime are the same in nature. R v Pembliton (1874).

Question 12

What is contemporaneity?

Answer 12

This is the idea that the D must have the Actus reus and Mens rea at the same time.

Question 13

How did the courts develop a way to deal with cases where this did not occur?

Answer 13

The continuing Act.

Question 14

What is the continuing Act?

Answer 14

This is where time can be stretched out so the Actus Reus and the Mens rea coincide.

Question 15

Case to show the Continuing Act in action?

Answer 15

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)

D was instructed to park his car close to the kerb and in the process
accidentally drove onto a police officer’s foot.

When the police officer asked D to move his car from his foot D swore at
him and turned off the ignition without having moved the car.

Although at the time he drove on the police officer’s foot there was no Mens rea this was then established when he refused to move the car. On appeal D tried to argue that there was no Mens rea present for the act, but the CoA rejected this saying that the sequences of events constituted a continuous act.

Question 16

Another case to show the Continuing Act in use (not the Police one)?

Answer 16

R v Thabo Meli (1954)

The Ds had attempted to kill their victim by beating him over the head then threw what they thought was a dead body over a cliff. The V actually died from a mixture of the fall and exposure. The argument was that at the time of the Actus reus the defendants no longer had the Mens rea. It was held that throwing their victim over a cliff was part of a series of acts and following through on a preconceived plan of action. The Ds had the Mens rea when the series of acts began therefore Actus reus and Mens rea coincided so they were found guilty.

Question 17

What is strict liability?

Answer 17

1. These are cases that DO NOT require Mens rea. Know as no fault offences and almost all are created by statute law.
2. The crime consists of performing a forbidden act or not performing a statutory duty.
3. This rule can only be replaced if an Act of Parliament expressly or impliedly excludes the necessity of Mens rea

Question 18

Case example for strict liability?

Answer 18

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

The D, a butcher, asked a vet to check whether meat was “fit for human consumption”. The meat was given the all-clear. The butcher sold the meat to the general public. It was not fit for humans so the butcher was found guilty.