Mens Rea Flashcards
Q: What is the definition of Mens Rea?
A: Mens Rea is the mental element of a crime, referring to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offence.
Q: What are the three main levels of Mens Rea?
Intention (Direct & Indirect).
Recklessness.
Negligence (rare in criminal law).
Q: What is direct intention?
A: The defendant decides to bring about a criminal consequence.
Q: Which case defines direct intention?
A: R v Mohan (1975) – The defendant drove at a police officer to escape. His purpose was to cause harm, so he had direct intent.
Q: What is indirect (oblique) intention?
A: The defendant does not desire the result but knows it is a virtually certain consequence of their actions.
Q: Which case introduced the ‘virtual certainty’ test for indirect intention?
A: R v Woollin (1998) – A man threw his baby towards a cot, but the baby hit a hard surface and died. The court ruled that if death or serious injury was a virtually certain consequence and the defendant appreciated that, intention can be inferred.
Q: What earlier case set the groundwork for the Woollin test?
A: R v Nedrick (1986) – A defendant set fire to a house, killing a child. The Court of Appeal set the virtual certainty test but said the jury ‘may infer intention’, later clarified in Woollin.
Q: What is recklessness in criminal law?
A: The defendant takes an unjustified risk and is aware of the risk but carries on regardless.
Q: What case established the subjective test for recklessness?
A: R v Cunningham (1957) – The defendant tore a gas meter off a wall, causing gas poisoning. The court ruled that recklessness requires:
Awareness of the risk.
Taking the risk anyway.
Q: What case confirmed subjective recklessness as the standard test?
A: R v G and R (2003) – Two boys set fire to newspapers in a bin, causing £1 million in damage. The House of Lords ruled that recklessness must be subjective, meaning the defendant must personally appreciate the risk.
Q: What is negligence in criminal law?
A: The defendant fails to meet the standard of a reasonable person, even if they were unaware of the risk.
Q: What case is an example of gross negligence manslaughter?
A: R v Adomako (1994) – A doctor failed to notice a disconnected oxygen tube, causing death. His actions were so negligent that he was criminally liable.
Q: What is transferred malice?
A: If the defendant intends to commit a crime against one person but accidentally harms another, the Mens Rea is transferred.
Q: Which case established transferred malice?
A: R v Latimer (1886) – A man aimed to hit a man with his belt but accidentally struck a woman. His intention transferred.
Q: What case shows that transferred malice does not apply if the offences are different?
A: R v Pembliton (1874) – A man threw a stone at someone but broke a window. His intent to harm a person could not transfer to property damage.
Q: What is the principle of coincidence?
A: The Actus Reus and Mens Rea must occur at the same time for liability.
Q: What case shows that the courts can apply a ‘continuing act’ to satisfy coincidence?
A: Fagan v MPC (1969) – A driver accidentally drove onto a policeman’s foot but then refused to move. The court ruled that the Actus Reus was a continuing act, so Mens Rea could form during it.
Q: What case shows the ‘one transaction’ principle?
A: R v Thabo Meli (1954) – Defendants beat a man, thinking he was dead, and threw him off a cliff. He died from exposure. The court ruled that the beating and disposal were part of the same transaction, so Mens Rea applied.
