Mens Rea

Question 1

Mens rea?

Answer 1

• Fault element

Question 2

Direct Intent

Answer 2

R v Moloney [1985] Jury Q q/o detailed guidance from judge.

Question 3

Oblique Intent

Answer 3

R v Woollin [1999] Indirect intention. Death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.

Question 4

Negligence

Answer 4

Adomako [1994] “ Whether the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all circumstances as to amount in their judgement to a criminal act or ommission.

Question 5

Recklessnes

Answer 5

Cunningham (subjective) recklessness- D acts recklessly if:

• >He believes his conduct will give rise to a risk of harm;
• >and it is unreasonable for D to run the risk that he foresees.

Question 6

Dishonesty Thefts Act 1968

Answer 6

R v Ghosh [1982] (i) would ordinary ppl consider it dishonest; if so (ii)Did D realise that they would find it dishonest?

Question 7

Criticism of Mens Rea

Answer 7

-> Not consistent in applying objective or subjectice test for liability. There is an absence of underlying rationale & the offences develope independently of each other. ->Sir Henry Brooke (Former Head of Law com) Suggests codification of some parts of crim law

Question 8

Transferred Malice

Answer 8

R v Pembleton [1874] does not operate where the crime which occured was differentfrom what was intended. [otherwise it works see Latimer [1886]]

Question 9

Circumventing Concurrence of AR & MR

Answer 9

-> Creating fresh AR at later time that coincides with D’s MR. ->

Question 10

Prosecutro might try Continuing act

Answer 10

Fagan V Metropolitan Police Commisioner [1969]

Question 11

Or seeing if they can be prodectured via ommision

Answer 11

As in Miller [1982]

Question 12

Or as a single complex transaction

Answer 12

ThaboMeli [1954]