Mens Rea Flashcards
What is Mens rea
the necessary state of mind of a person required to make an act a criminal offence
- Moloney [1985] AC 905;
Son accidentally shoots father late one evening whilst they were drinking- father claimed he could ‘outdraw and outshoot’ son- Manslaughter conviction
Creation of Lord Bridge’s Golden Rule: In general jury do not need direction as to the meaning of intent
Where necessary must be made clear foresight is not equivalent to intention
** Woollin [1999] AC 92
Father loses temper - throws his 3yr old son on the floor - baby smashes his skull and dies- convicted of manslaughter
For murder cases the intent needed is that of foresight of virtually certainty of death or substantial harm (GBH)
- Matthews & Alleyne [2003] Crim LR 553
D’s convicted of murder - assault victim outside club - beat him - steal his wallet- throw victim off a bridge into river - he had told them he couldn’t swim - victim drowns
Case provides that Woolin test is evidence not a rule of law - if sufficed jury do not have to find intent but can if they find it suitable too
Recklessness
An alternative state of mind for some offences, reckless to one’s acts may suffice as mens rea for some offences - not murder
it is the unreasonable taking of a risk by the defendant
Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
D steals gas meter - fractures gas pipe in process - coal gas escapes into bedroom of adjoining house - W asleep there inhales a lot of the gas, Conviction quashed on appeal - judge erred in direction
Creates ‘Cunningham’ recklessness
maliciously interpreted to mean recklessly - meaning awareness of a risk which is unreasonable to take in the circumstances (Kenny’s Def)
(Caldwell [1982] AC 341)
OVERRULED BY G
D set fire to hotel where he used to work - whilst drunk - plead guilty to arson charge - not guilty to charge of arson endangering life
creates Caldwell Recklessness -
One can be reckless if does an act that creates serious risk of harm and either one ‘gives no thought’ to an ‘obvious risk’ or if one acknowledges the risk of harm but goes on to take risk anyway
** G [2003] UKHL 50, [2004] 1 AC 1034
OVERULES CALDWELL - SETS MODERN LAW TEST FOR RECKLESSNESS
New test- G recklessness:
awareness of a risk + in circumstances known to D it is unreasonable to take risk
2 boys aged 11+ 12 set fire to newspaper under some bins - leave it - fire catches to bins and spreads causing £1mil worth of damage - conviction of arson quashed by HL on appeal by Ds
- (Elliott v C [1983] 1 WLR 939, [1983] 2 All ER 1005)
Follows Caldwell recklessness - old law - example of -ve of this law - case seems unjust
14yr old girl - with low intelligence - throws bottle of white spirit on shed floor and sets it alight - completely destroys shed- D convicted of arson on appeal by crown - Caldwell recklessness used - objective test seems unfair
Strict Liability
a crime in which D can be convicted without proof of D’s mental state - requires no mens rea
Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132
D rents out farmhouse rooms - one day finds out people are using them to smoke cannabis + cannabis resin - convicted but conviction quashed on appeal
Unless it is explicitly spelt out or indicated by necessary implication by parliament that no mens rea is required and so there is strict liability, we must presume some element of mens rea is required for ‘true’ criminal cases.
B v DPP [2000] 2 WLR 452
15 yr old boy repeatedly asks 13 yr old girl to perform oral sex on him - continually rejected - he claims he believed her to be older than 14 - conviction quashed by H o L -he did not know + Parliament not set out that it was an offence of strict liability
Lord Reid: ‘That means that whenever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea.”
Confirms sweet vs parsley- must assume there is mens rea required unless specifically stated otherwise
** G [2008] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 AC 1034
Rape of child under 13 - D claims she had told him she was 15 - convicted - appeals on grounds she had consented and acticle 5 Sexual offences Act 2003 incompatible wirth section 6 ECHR
held that section 5 of the 2003 Act is not incompatible with article 6(2) - an offence of strict liability does not remove one’s rights to a fair trial and does not take away the presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty
Thabo Meli [1954] 1 All ER 373
4 D’s carry out preconceived plan to beat Victim (v) to death - they kidnap him and beat him - believe him to be dead but he isn’t - roll him off a low cliff - whilst thinking he was already dead - to make it look accidental - dies from exposure at bottom of cliff - beating injuries not sufficient to cause death - convicted of murder
Acts as part of a preconceived plan are considered a connected sequence - act causing final death doesn’t need to coincide with requisite mens rea
- Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439
D asked to park on curb by police constable – D pulled up and drove onto PO’s foot, he shouted get off my foot multiple times – D yelled back ‘fuck you, you can wait,’- turned of ignition of car – slowly turns it back on and reverses off the foot - convicted of assaulting a PO in his line of duty - held that his actions were a continuing act of assault
Assault cannot be committed by omission - so cannot be guilty by omission despite similarity of case to miller
Creates continuing act principle - mens rea does not need to be present at initiation of act - as long as it is formed during the duration of act it is sufficient to constitute an offence - however if act completed and mens rea formed after there can be no offence
- Le Brun [1991] 4 All ER 673
D and his wife (V) get into heated argument walking home - D hits wife on jaw - knocks her out - tries to lift and move her away - she falls - hits her head on pavement - skull fracture causing death - convicted of manslaughter
An act to conceal a previous unlawful act is part of the same sequence of acts as the previous act and so there is no novus actus interveniens
So in this case irrelevant as to the second ‘killing’ act having no mens rea as there was mens rea in the initial unlawful act and chain of causation is not broken
Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 369
D aimed to strike another man but instead hit a woman standing nearby- convicted of malicious wounding
if one is committing a malicious act aimed at A but accidentally strikes/commits it on B, we can say that the malice has been transferred from A to B, even tho one does not intend to hit B
- A-G’s Ref (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936
D stabbed a young woman who was to his knowledge pregnant with his child- no injury to foetus detected – few weeks after stabbing -woman goes into labour and gave birth to a grossly premature child – considered to only have 50% chance of survival – at time of birth it was clear knife had in fact penetrated the foetus. Child dies 121 days later from lung condition- related to premature birth but unrelated to knife wound
–H o L rule that the D could be charged with unlawful manslaughter as he has the necessary mens rea – tyring to GBH the mother , the actus reus, and stabbing the mother and the baby suffering as a result is a foreseeable consequence
Held that:
1) sufficient for the mens rea for manslaughter that D intended to commit unlawful act which all sober and reasonable people would have recognised as creating a risk of harm to some other person;
2) that it was unnecessary to show that the person who died as a result of the act was the intended victim or could have been envisaged as being within the area of potential risk
When discussing unintentional injury or death to child caused when they were a foetus we cannot apply the transfer of malice rule as the foetus is not yet considered in the eyes of the law a person
