Mens rea Flashcards
define men’s rea
guilty mind
what 2 types of intent are there
direct intent
oblique intent
what case defines direct intent as aim, objective + purpose to bring about the consequence
Mohan
what case defines oblique intent as a virtual certain consequence of D’s actions + D appreciated this
Woollin
what case confirmed Woollin and said that intention can be inferred for murder if D appreciates death is a virtual certainty
Matthews & Alleyne
what is recklessness + case
lower level of MR compared to intention
Cunningham - D must be aware of risk and go on to take it
what is transferred malice
D’s MR transferred from intended V to actual V
in what case did D’s MR transfer from X to Y
Latimer
in what case did D’s malice transfer from old man (intended V) to old woman (actual v)
Mitchell
what case states that D may not be guilty where the MR is for a completely different type of offence
Pembliton
what is the coincidence of AR + MR (contemporaneity rule)
AR + MR occur at the same time
in what case was there a continuing act - the AR was a continuing act as D’s car was on V’s foot
Fagan
in what case was the AR a series of events + it was sufficient that the MR happened at some point during the series of events
Thabo Meli
what are strict liability offences
offences that don’t require MR
what case stated that as long as D committed the AR and the conduct is voluntary, then they will be guilty (strict liability)
Callow v Tillstone
where are most strict liability offences found and example
in statute law e.g. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
strict liability pollution of the environment case
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward
food safety strict liability case
Smedleys v Breed
Protection of children from gambling etc strict liability case + PoL
Shah v Harrow LBC - there was no ‘due diligence’ defence available
as in Gammon, there may not be a presumption of MR if…(4)
1) crime regulatory as oppose to true crime
2) crime is of social concern
3) wording of Act indicates SL
4) offence carries a heavy penalty
as in what case strict liability will not be used where an offence is ‘truly criminal’ + should require MR to be proven
Sweet v Parsley
