Mens Rea

Question 1

what are they, how do they affect liability

Gammon Principles

Answer 1

= intention

Gammon v AG of Hong Kong PC [1985]
established Gammon Principles:
- Presumption of law that MR is required before a person can be held guilty of criminal offence;

(stigma)
- Presumption (that MR is required) is particularly strong where the offence is ‘truly criminal’ in character;

when may this presumption be rebutted? (where strict liability may be permitted- cause even in statute where says strict liability there is a presumption that MR is required unless):

(parliamentary intention)
- Presumption applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute

(social concern)
- The only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute concerned with an issue of social concern, and public safety is such an issue;

(effectiveness of statute law).
- Even where statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of MR stands unless it can also be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act

Question 2

Strict Liability

Answer 2

Strict liability: does not require mens rea

Sweet v Parsley [1970]
- whether strict liability could be held for offences unbeknownst to the offender.
- proof of knowledge of AR was required.

Gammon Principles states 3 ways for MR presumption to be rebutted in statute: Parliamentary Intention, social, effective statute.

Question 3

‘Intention’

Answer 3

key for MR

R v Moloney [1985]
- basic rule: avoid defining intention - should rely on jury’s common sense understanding of ordinary meaning.
- excpetion: when D’s aim or purpose may not have been to bring about the prohibited outcome, but the outcome was an almost inevitable result of D’s action (plane bomber, car bonnet, conjoined twins) (is this not reckless?)

Woolin