Mens Rea Flashcards
Sweet v Parsley 1970
Cannabis found at D’s house. Charged with running drug house. Mens rea absent, conviction quashed.
R v O’Connor 2009
D part of violent group.
Attacked V twice during day. Appealed on prejudicial evidence ground.
Evidence admissible, testament to character.
R v Willoughby 2005
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
Hyam v DPP 1974
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
R v Steane 1947
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.
Gammon v AG of Hong Kong 1984
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.
R v Adomako 1994
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
R v Muhamad 2002
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.
R v G 2006
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.
R v Unah 2011
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.
Fagan v MPC 1968
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.
R v McNamara & Bennett 2009
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.
R v Le Brun 1991
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.)
R v Matthews 2003
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.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex P Simms 1999
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.
R v Nedrick 1986
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.
R v Walker
R v Hayles 1990
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.
DPP v Smith 1960
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.
R v Woolin 1998
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.
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993
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.
B (A minor) v DPP (2000)
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.
DPP v Majewski 1976
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.
R v Seymour 1983
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.
R v Cunningham 1957
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.
