Mens Rea

Question 1

Sweet v Parsley 1970

Answer 1

Cannabis found at D’s house. Charged with running drug house. Mens rea absent, conviction quashed.

Question 2

R v O’Connor 2009

Answer 2

D part of violent group.
Attacked V twice during day. Appealed on prejudicial evidence ground.
Evidence admissible, testament to character.

Question 3

R v Willoughby 2005

Answer 3

D burned down his pub.
Insurance related, V was killed.
D convicted, reckless act manslaughter.
Appeal: Duty of care misdirection
Duty: Ownership, gain, recruited V

Appeal dismissed

Question 4

Hyam v DPP 1974

Answer 4

D had relationship w/ Man.
Man later engaged to V.
D set fire to V’s house, V’s two children killed.
Appeal: intent only to scare.
Distinction: forming intent/foreseeing consequences.
Dismissed: desire/certain foresight same
Difficulty, see DPP v Smith

Question 5

R v Steane 1947

Answer 5

D convicted of assisting enemy.
D had been threatened/beaten.
Appeal: Act separate from intent.
Jury should only convict if the acts were willingly done.
Jury not reminded of assaults.
Conviction quashed.

Question 6

Gammon v AG of Hong Kong 1984

Answer 6

Three defendants.
Went off plans for construction.
Defendants didn't know, case dismissed.
AG appealed, knowledge not necessary.
Strict liability imposed, public interest.
Case remitted to magistrate.

Question 7

R v Adomako 1994

Answer 7

D an anaesthetist at work.
Ventilator tube disconnected, V died.
D convicted of manslaughter.
Appealed, jury should have been directed on definition of recklessness
Held: Directions not required in cases of gross negligence

Question 8

R v Muhamad 2002

Answer 8

D convicted for adding to insolvency debt by gambling.
Appealed on grounds of mens rea.
Held: strict liability, public interest.
Followed Sweet and Parsley decision.

Question 9

R v G 2006

Answer 9

V (12) had intercourse w/ D (15).
V later claimed rape.
D pleaded guilty, strict liability.
D later appealed against sentence.
V admitted claiming to be 15.
Section 5 offence previously appropriate.
V's admission changed court's view.
Section 13 (lesser) offence substituted.

Question 10

R v Unah 2011

Answer 10

D, legal immigrant, false passport (expired).
Claimed friend had obtained it.
Convicted, belief not reasonable excuse.
On appeal: Belief not excuse in itself, but could further a broader explanation.
Judge’s ruling affected D’s plea.
Reasonable excuse should have gone to jury.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.

Question 11

Fagan v MPC 1968

Answer 11

V (PC) told D to park.
D’s car rolled onto V’s foot.
D: ‘Fuck you, you can wait’
D finally removed car, convicted of assault.
D appealed, initial assault unintentional.
Held: Mens rea superimposed on continuing act.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 12

R v McNamara & Bennett 2009

Answer 12

D1/D2 attacked V (54, riding bike)
D2 had 'Gone mad'.
D1 intervened, D2 responded aggressively, D1 left the scene.
D1 appealed, lack of intent.
Held: Withdrawal was too late.
Injury risk became death risk.
Appeal denied.

Question 13

R v Le Brun 1991

Answer 13

D had argument w/ wife.
Hit her, she lost consciousness.
Attempted to move, dropping her.
Hit her head, fractured skull.
Held: Act intended to conceal.
Chain of causation not broken.
D guilty of manslaughter.
(Thabo Meli distinguished, preconceived plan.)

Question 14

R v Matthews 2003

Answer 14

Two defendants threw V off bridge.
Jury directed to convict if:
Defendants had specific intent
V's death was a virtual certainty
Appeal against direction.
Impossible to argue that virtual certainty does not import intent.

Question 15

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex P Simms 1999

Answer 15

Applicants prisoners convicted for murder.
Visited by journalists, became friends.
Journalists wanted to write story.
Authorities restricted access without declaration.
Application for judicial review granted.
Held: Restriction unjustified rights curtailment.
Statute not ultra vires itself.
Secretary’s reliance unlawful, couldn’t stand.

Question 16

R v Nedrick 1986

Answer 16

D poured paraffin through letterbox.
Set it alight, could died.
D confessed to starting the fire.
Claimed he didn’t intend death.
Jury directed to equated foresight with intention, D convicted of murder.
Held on appeal: Jury should only infer intent for virtual certainties.
Conviction quashed, manslaughter substituted.

Question 17

R v Walker

R v Hayles 1990

Answer 17

D1/2 involved in fight w/ V.
Defendants threatened V’s life, hit head against wall.
D’s then dropped V from 3rd floor balcony.
D’s charged w/ attempted murder.
Appeal: Judge misdirected, probability/certainty.
Held: intent only elaborated in exceptional circumstances. Difference if terms did not render verdict unsafe.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 18

DPP v Smith 1960

Answer 18

D asked to pull over.
Accelerated away, V (Police officer) held on.
D shook V off car.
V killed by oncoming car.
Judge directed using ‘Reasonable man’.
Held on appeal: Reasonable man is objective test.
Murder requires subjective mens rea.
Manslaughter substituted.
House of Lords: D’s intent was subjective, he intended to shake V off the car.
Results judged objectively, risk of exposing V to risk of GBH.
Appeal allowed, murder restored.

Question 19

R v Woolin 1998

Answer 19

D lost temper, threw V (3 month old son) to concrete floor.
V suffered fractured skull, died.
Judge directed jury to convict of murder if D appreciated a ‘substantial risk’.
Appeal: Substantial risk unacceptably widened intent from ‘Virtual certainty’.
Intention/recklessness line blurred.

Murder quashed, manslaughter substituted.

Question 20

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993

Answer 20

Patient injured in Hillsborough Disaster.
Lungs crushed, blood supply interrupted, V left in PVS.
Father: V would not want to be left in PVS.
Family/physicians sought discontinuation declaration.
Held: Medical care should benefit patient.
PVS not benefit, sanctity if life not violated.
Medical care invasive, non-consentual.
3 year PVS, doctor no longer under duty of care.
No effect on criminal law, extreme nature of case.
Approval to be sought on similar facts.

Question 21

B (A minor) v DPP (2000)

Answer 21

D (15) sat next to V (13) on bus.
Asked for oral sex several times.
Charged w/ inciting girl under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency.
Claimed to believe V was 14.
Judge ruled no defence.
D changed plea to guilty.
Held on appeal: Mens rea essential.
Necessary for prosecution to prove absence of belief.
Conviction quashed.

Question 22

DPP v Majewski 1976

Answer 22

D involved in pub brawl.
Customers, landlord, police assaulted.
Attempted defence, drink/drug influenced.
Judge directed jury: No defence, crime was of basic intent.
D appealed, judge misdirected jury.
Held: Intoxication mitigates in specific intent, judge’s rule was sound.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 23

R v Seymour 1983

Answer 23

D driving an 11 tonne lorry.
Attempted to push car w/ lorry, crushing V (Woman he had argued with) between two vehicles.
D convicted of manslaughter.
Appealed, misdirection.
Held: Direction was sound. Should have pointed out that risk of death must be very high. Verdict sound.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 24

R v Cunningham 1957

Answer 24

D stole cellar gas meter.
Gas escaped to adjoining house.
V inhaled considerable amount.
D charged w/ unlawfully administering a noxious thing.
Held: ‘Maliciously’ postulates foresight of consequence.
Jury misdirected, appeal allowed, conviction quashed.

Question 25

R v Moloney 1985

Answer 25

D killed stepfather with shotgun.
Preparation/loading race.
Convicted of murder.
On appeal: Jury misdirected.
D said to have no intent.
Judge had stated intent as desire, or foreseeability, desired or not.
D had not aimed it V, result unforeseeable, jury unaware.
Verdict unsafe, manslaughter substituted.

Question 26

R v Church 1965

Answer 26

D took V to van for sex.
V mocked D for failing to satisfy her.
D knocked V unconscious.
Threw body into river, believing her to be dead.
V drowned in the river.
D convicted of manslaughter.
Appealed on misdirection.
Held: Recklessness correct direction.
Unlawful act objectively judged to risk some harm to V.
Judge didn’t direct that conduct could be regarded as series of acts culminating in death (Thabo Meli).
Correct direction would have resulted in same verdict.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 27

Dadson 1850

Answer 27

Constable guarding copse.
Shot intruder stealing wood.
V had previous conviction, but D could not have known this.
D could not rely on reasonable excuse.

Question 28

Woolmington v DPP 1935

Answer 28

D’s wife moved out.
D went to her mother’s house, where she was staying, with a sawn-off shotgun.
Gun discharged, D claimed unintentionally, killed V.
D claimed intention to scare and declare suicidal intent.
Held: Onus on prosecution to prove guilt.
D only required to raise doubt, not outright prove innocence.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, remitted for appropriate sentencing.

Question 29

Ahmad 1987

Answer 29

D wished to improve property.
Commenced without consent of tenant, dispute arose.
Convicted of doing act intended to drive tenant out.
No evidence of wilfulness.
Did not rectify, but not required by statute, an omission is not doing an act.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.

Question 30

Lewin v CPS 2002

Answer 30

V drunk in Spain, helped to car by friends (D and others).
D, sober, drive back to accommodation, leaving V to sleep in car.
D found V dead in car the next day.
Number of factors; Alcohol poisoning, position, heat stroke, dehydration.
Certified question: Would reasonable man have foreseen risk?
Held: CPS correct to not prosecute.
Adult in question, not dog or small child.
Application for judicial review denied.

Question 31

R v G 2004

Answer 31

D1/2 (11/12) set fire to newspaper.
Threw it under a bin, expecting it to burn itself out.
Bin caught fire, spread to shop and nearby buildings, causing £1m of damage.
Reasonable man test applied.
Convicted.
Held on appeal: Departing from Caldwell, that the objective test was unjust.
Appeal allowed.
Conviction quashed.

Question 32

R v K 2001

Answer 32

D, 26, convicted of rape of V, 14.
Held on appeal: Mens rea essential.
Onus on prosecution to negative D’s belief.

Question 33

Thabo Meli v The Queen 1954

Answer 33

Defendants plotted to kill V.
Hit him over the head then, believing him to be dead, rolled him over a low cliff.
V later died of exposure.
Appeal: Actual death not accompanied by mens rea.
Held: One continuing act, cannot be divided up that way.
Appeal dismissed.