MENS REA

Question 1

DEFINITION OF MENS REA

Answer 1

the mental element required for a crime.

* (D) will only be guilty if they had the necessary mens rea at the time

Question 2

• DIFFERENT FORMS OF MENS REA

5

Answer 2

o Intention (direct or oblique)

o Recklessness

o Specific mental states (e.g., dishonesty in theft)

o Negligence (in some cases)

o Transferred malice (if D intends to harm one person but harms another)

Question 3

TYPES OF INTENTION

2

Answer 3

o Direct intention: D’s aim or purpose (e.g., shooting someone in the head intending to kill them).

o Oblique intention: D’s actions have a side effect that was not D’s main purpose, but D foresaw it as a virtual certainty (e.g., setting a house on fire to scare someone but foreseeing that death was virtually certain).

o Section 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 instructs courts to consider all t

Question 4

DEVELOPMENT OF LAW ON INTENTION

EARLY OBJECTIVE APPROACH

OVERRULED BY SUBJECTIVE APPROACH S8 CJ ACT 1967

Answer 4

CAME FROM DPP v Smith [1960]

• D drove with a policeman clinging to his car, killing him.
• The House of Lords held that D could be presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his actions.
• This was criticised for applying an objective test (focusing on what a reasonable person would have foreseen, rather than D’s actual mindset).

OVERRULED BY SUBJECTIVE APPROACH S8 CJ ACT 1967

Question 5

OBLIQUE INTENTION (1974)

Answer 5

Hyam v DPP [1974]

• D set fire to a house to frighten someone, but two people died.
• The House of Lords held that foreseeing a highly probable consequence (e.g., death) was enough to establish intention.
• However, there was disagreement among judges about whether foresight of consequences equalled intention.

DRICUS DU PLESSIS

Question 6

OBLIQUE INTENTION (1985)

Answer 6

R v Moloney [1985] – “Natural Consequences” Test

• D and his stepfather were drinking and playing with a shotgun. D accidentally shot and killed him.
• House of Lords ruled that intention and foresight are different.
• Moloney guidelines for juries:
  1. Was death/serious injury a natural consequence of D’s actions?
  2. Did D foresee it as a natural consequence?
• If both answers are yes, the jury may infer intention.

Question 7

OBLIQUE INTENTION (1986)

Answer 7

R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] – Probability is Key

• Miners on strike dropped a concrete block off a bridge, killing a taxi driver.
• House of Lords ruled that Moloney was unclear – the greater the probability of the consequence, the more likely it was intended.

Question 8

OBLIQUE INTENTION (1986)

Answer 8

R v Nedrick [1986] – “Virtual Certainty” Test

• D poured paraffin through a letterbox to scare someone. A child died in the fire.
• Court of Appeal ruled that foresight of a consequence as “virtually certain” could be used as evidence of intention.
• This tightened the law from Hyam by raising the standard from “high probability” to “virtual certainty.”

Question 9

OBLIQUE INTENTION (1998)

Answer 9

R v Woollin [1998] – Final Clarification

• D threw his baby onto a hard surface, causing death.
• House of Lords reformulated the Nedrick test:
  o Jury must find intention (rather than merely inferring it) if:
  1. Death/serious injury was a virtual certainty; and
  2. D appreciated that this was the case.
• Key Change: “infer” (Nedrick) was replaced with “find” to make the test stronger.

R v Matthews & Alleyne [2003]

Later Cases and Application of Woollin *

Question 10

Key Takeaways on Intention

Answer 10

• Intention should not be confused with motive or desire.

Example: If a doctor gives a lethal dose of medicine to a terminally ill patient to relieve suffering, their motive may be compassion, but their intention (causing death) is still present.

• The test for oblique intention is now well-established:
  o Death/serious injury must be virtually certain.
  o D must appreciate this fact.