Mens Rea

Question 1

What does the case of Pembilton (1874) demonstrate?

Answer 1

Malice of the actual crime must be the same as the intended for it be successfully transferred.

Question 2

What four cases are relevant to contemporaneity?

Answer 2

Fagan v MPC [1969]; Thabo Meli [1954]; R v Church [1996] & R v Le Brun [1992].

Question 3

Define Mens Rea.

Answer 3

Mens Rea literally means ‘The guilty mind’. However, Smith and Hogan defines MR as “Mens Rea is the mental element required by the definition of the particular crime - typically, intention to fulfil the Actus Reus of that crime, or recklessness whether it would be fulfilled”.

Question 3

Which case(s) demonstrate the transaction principle in regards to contemporaneity?

Answer 3

Thabo Meli [1954]; R v Church [1996] & R v Le Brun [1992]

Question 4

What case states that it is the jury’s task to infer intention and that they do not require further direction?

Answer 4

R v Moloney [1985]

Question 4

What is negligence?

Answer 4

Negligence is where the D acts in a way that the reasonable person would not.

Question 5

What was a leading issue with the Caldwell test, and which case demonstrated this issue?

Answer 5

The test made people reckless even if they did not recognise an ‘obvious risk’ as obvious was determined by the standard of the reasonable man - as in Elliot v C [1983].

Question 6

What four ways can Mens Rea exist?

Answer 6

Intention; Recklessness; Negligence & Knowledge

Question 6

What is the doctrine of Transferred Malice?

Answer 6

Where D intends to harm a particular person or property, and instead hits an unintended person or property and malice is transferred from intended to unintended.

Question 7

What is the contemporaneity (coincidence) rule?

Answer 7

Where AR and MR must occasion at the same time as to create a complete crime.

Question 8

What is a basic intent crime?

Answer 8

An offence which can be committed by either intention or subjective recklessness.

Question 9

What is an offence not requiring MR called?

Answer 9

A strict liability offence.

Question 9

What is the test for subjective recklessness and what is the leading case for this?

Answer 9

When the D foresees an unreasonable/unjustifiable risk, and continues regardless. - Cunningham (1957)

Question 9

Which case(s) demonstrate continuing act theory in regards to contemporaneity?

Answer 9

Fagan v MPC [1969]

Question 10

How does civil negligence differ from criminal negligence and which case demonstrates this?

Answer 10

Bateman (1925); Beyond a mere matter of compensation… and shows such a disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment.

Question 12

When should oblique intention be discussed in essay circumstances?

Answer 12

When discussing specific intent offences where direct intention does not apply, or MR specific questions.

Question 13

What four cases are relevant in regards to oblique intention, and which of these four is the leading case?

Answer 13

Hyam v DPP (1975); R v Moloney (1985); R v Nedrick (1986) & the leading case R v Woolin (1996).

Question 15

What case demonstrates that malice can still be transferred even when contact occurs with the intended victim?

Answer 15

R v Mitchell [1983]

Question 17

In regards to oblique intention what was the test established in R v Nedrick?

Answer 17

The jury is not entitled to infer intention unless the outcome was a virtual certainty.

Question 18

What is a specific intent crime?

Answer 18

An offence which can only be committed by intention - be this direct or oblique intention.

Question 19

What case establishes the test for subjective recklessness in regards to criminal damage?

Answer 19

R v G (2003).

Question 20

What three cases are relevant to transferred malice?

Answer 20

R v Latimer (1886); R v Mitchell [1983]; R v Pembilton (1874)

Question 22

In regards to oblique intention what was the test established in Hyam v DPP?

Answer 22

A high probability of seeing the outcome amounts to intention.

Question 23

What case was overruled by R v G (2003), and what was the test in this case?

Answer 23

Caldwell (1982) - 1) they are aware of a risk; OR; 2) there was an obvious and serious risk and they failed to consider whether or not there was risk.

Question 24

What is the current test for oblique intention, and what case established this?

Answer 24

The consequence was not the D’s true aim and desire, but the consequence was a virtually certain consequence and the D appreciated that such was the case. Established by the case of Woolin (1996) by Lord Steyn.

Question 25

What does the case of Chandler v DPP [1964] illustrate?

Answer 25

Motive and intention are different, while intention is relevant. Motive is not.

Question 27

What type of MR exists if the consequence was the D’s true aim, purpose and objective?

Answer 27

Direct Intent.

Question 28

In which offence is the only form of negligence recognised under common law?

Answer 28

Gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 29

What is the current test for subjective recklessness in regards to criminal damage?

Answer 29

1) In the circumstances known to the accused it was objectively unreasonable for the accused to take that risk AND; 2) At the time of committing the AR the accused was subjectively aware of the risk, but took it anyway.

Question 30

In regards to oblique intention what was the test established in R v Moloney?

Answer 30

Foresight of consequence be considered oblique intention.