Mens Rea Flashcards
Thabo Meli v R
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
Accused were in a hut and got a man drunk, hit him on the head and left him outside to die. The man died of exposure.
They claimed that they thought that the man had died due to the blows to the head in the hut.
Tried to argue that there were two separate acts involved: the acts in the hut, and putting the body outside.
There was mens rea and actus reus in the hut, but they tried to argue that they had no mens rea with regards to putting the body outside – therefore they tried to argue that they were not responsible for the death.
Court held that this was a continuing act – you cannot divide an act up like that.
Fagan v MPC
A police constable asked the defendant to park his car nearer the kerb. The constable stood in front of the car indicating a suitable place. One of the wheels of the car came to rest on the constable’s foot and the engine then stopped. In answer to the constable’s repeated requests to the defendant to move the car the defendant merely used abusive language. The car engine stopped running but afterwards the defendant somewhat reluctantly moved the car backwards, off the constable’s foot. The defendant was accused of assaulting the constable, contrary to the Police Act 1964 s.51(1) .
It could not be proved that the original driving on the foot had been accompanied by the requisite mens rea for the crime of battery, nevertheless the courts took the view that this was battery.
HELD: that whether or not the placing of the wheel on the constable’s foot was intentional or not and whether or not the car engine was stopped by the defendant the charge was proved.
The reasoning was that the driving of the car on the complainer’s foot and allowing it to remain there could be treated as one continuing act of the application of force.
For an assault to be committed, both the elements of actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time.
This case is thus persuasive authority for the view that, where an actus reus can be regarded as a continuing one, it is sufficient if mens rea is present at some stage during its continuance.
R v Le Brun
A had an argument with his wife in the street outside their home, during which he struck her unlawfully, without intending to do her really serious harm, and she fell unconscious on the highway. He then moved her in an attempt to conceal the assault. Whilst he was doing this her head hit the pavement, causing a fatal injury. A was charged with murder. The jury were directed that they could convict A of murder or manslaughter (depending on the intention with which he had first struck his victim) if they were sure that he had accidentally dropped her, causing her death, while attempting to move her in order either to get her into the house against her will or to cover up the previous assault. The jury acquitted A of murder and convicted him of manslaughter.
HELD: dismissing the appeal, that where the assault and the eventual act causing death are part of the same sequence of events, the act which causes death and the necessary mental state to constitute manslaughter need not coincide in point of time. The judge’s direction, read against the background of facts and viewed as a whole, was satisfactory in relation to manslaughter.
• If there is mens rea without an actus reus, or vice versa, (unless the offence is one of strict liability), there is again no crime.
• Generally the requirement of concurrence will mean that the mens rea must either precede the forbidden conduct or exist contemporaneously with the actus reus, BUT it is possible that in exceptional cases mens rea could be superimposed upon it.
Roberts v Hamilton
Transferred mens rea
Guy charged with assaulting someone with a stick – accidentally, meant to hit someone else.
Argued in appeal that victim lacked mens rea because transferred intent doesn’t apply to assault.
Court dismissed this.
Byrne v HMA
Transferred mens rea
Can’t transfer mens rea across from 2 different offences. So if you are reckless, you can’t be charged with willful fire raising.
So prosecution have to be careful about how they charge it – careful not to overlap the 2 mental states.
Hyam v DPP
Set house on fire by putting paraffin through letterbox. Child dies as a result. The defender claims only intended to intimidate the occupier. Introduced indirect intention – as the accused will be found to have indirect intention ‘where a defender has foreseen that death or GBH are highly probable’.
R v Moloney
Defender shot stepfather dead after drunken competition who could load gun faster. Defender said that he had no intention to kill his stepfather. The HOL held foresight of consequences is not actually intention, but only evidence from which intention may be inferred. It was decided that it should be left to the jury’s “good sense” to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent.
R v G
English case
Subjective recklessness
FACTS: In August 2000 the appellants, who were then aged 11 and 12 respectively, went camping without their parents’ permission. During the night they set fire to newspapers in the yard at the back of a shop and threw the lit newspapers under a wheelie bin. They left the yard without putting out the fire. The burning newspapers set fire to the bin and subsequently spread to the shop. Approximately GBP 1 million worth of damage was caused to the shop and adjoining buildings. The appellants’ case at trial was that they expected the newspapers to burn themselves out on the concrete floor of the yard and it was accepted that neither of them appreciated the risk of the fire spreading in the way that it did.
The boys appealed against the initial decision to uphold their convictions of arson.
HELD: Appeal allowed. This case showed a shift in the English courts from an objective test, to a subjective one.
Principle established: A person who gave no thought to the risk of damage or injury resulting from his conduct could not be found guilty of a serious criminal offence on the basis of recklessness if, by reason of his age or capacity, the risk would not have been obvious to him even if he had thought about it.
Black v Allen
Statutory Offences
When one youth jumped on another’s back in the course of horseplay in a public street and was thrown or shrugged off into a nearby glass window pane (which broke), it was wrong for justices of the peace in a district court to conclude that there had been recklessness simply because there was always some danger of breakage when youths fooled around in such a manner.
HELD: applying Allan v Patterson, that the justice had failed to ask whether the conduct had created an obvious and material risk of damage to the window, and accordingly could not determine whether the applicants had acted recklessly in accordance with the relevant statute.
Convictions quashed.
Allan v Paterson
Statutory offences
Reckless driving case.
Question: does the recklessness attach to the driving, or does it attach to the mental state of the accused?
The decision in this case concerned the interpretation of the concept of recklessness in the context of the repealed statutory offence of reckless driving.
Lord Justice General Emslie stated that the enquiry into the state of knowledge of the individual driver at the time of the offence was not required. In order to be able to “apply the adverb recklessly to the driving in question”, it had to be established:
“that it fell far below the standard of driving expected of the competent and careful driver and that it occurred either in the face of obvious and material dangers which were or should have been observed, appreciated and guarded against, or in circumstances which showed a complete disregard for any potential dangers which might result from the way in which the vehicle was being driven”.
HELD: The objective test is to be applied in the statutory offence of reckless driving.
Carr v HMA
Common law offences
Mens rea of recklessness
Courts said that it was not the same as Allan v Patterson. It was not about whether the fire raising was reckless, but more about the state of mind of the person:
“It is not the manner of doing an act which would otherwise be lawful which is in issue but the question whether the accused had the mens rea necessary for the commission of a crime”.
Cameron v Maguire
The Courts said that the appropriate test here was about the mens rea of the person.
The accused had a gun and decided to shoot it in the woods behind his house. He didn’t check that no one was in the woods. He endangered someone who was walking through the woods. Courts held that this was a blatant disregard for the consequences of his actions.
It’s an issue of fact for the jury to decide whether or not the accused’s behaviour / conduct meets the standard of recklessness required – “indifference to the consequences”.
Transco PLC v HMA
An indictment was brought against a company for (inter alia) culpable homicide, in that the company had allegedly failed to obtemper its duties in providing safe regimes for the supply of gas to domestic premises, and thus, in full knowledge of the risks, caused the deaths of 4 persons when an explosion occurred.
Could the company be held liable for culpable homicide?
Appeal court reviewed existing authorities. Followed English law. The company could only be liable criminally if a named person (or group of persons acting collectively) of a sufficient status within that company could be proved to have done a criminal act (or omission) with the required state of mind. Basically, the criminal responsibility of such a person (or persons) would be projected onto the company itself.
It is essential for the purposes of this rule that some such person, or group, shoul be precisely identified.
HELD: The Crown in this case could not produce such identification, therefore the charge of culpable homicide could not be held to be competent in this case.
