Mens Rea

Question 1

Who must prove the men’s Rea ?

Answer 1

The prosecution must prove the men’s Rea

Question 2

What is the definition of mens Rea?

Answer 2

When a person aims to bring about a prohibited consequence

Question 3

I have case defined the definition of mens Rea?

Answer 3

Mohan

Question 4

What is direct intention?

Answer 4

Direct intention is where you aim to do something. For example if I throw a vase to the floor in order to smash it then this is direct intention.

Question 5

What is oblique intention?

Answer 5

Aiming to do something but another consequence comes from it. For example throwing a vase at a dog but then the vase smashing would be oblique intention.

Question 6

Oblique intention can highlight and argue what point?

Answer 6

It was virtually certain therefore there was intention.

Question 7

What types of murder are there for intention?

Answer 7

Express or implied

Question 8

What is express intention ?

Answer 8

Intention to kill

Question 9

What is implied intention?

Answer 9

Intention to cause GBH

Question 10

Why is there no definition of intention?

Answer 10

It has been developed haphazardly through case law.

Question 11

Which case said that intention is a state of affairs where a person does more than merely contemplate?

Answer 11

Cunliffe V Goodman 1950

Question 12

Which case makes it clear that motive is not the same as intention?

Answer 12

Mohan 1975

Question 13

In which case did the defendant argue he did not have intention or the men’s Rea because his motive was good?

Answer 13

Chandler v DPP

Question 14

What was Chandler V DPP about ?

Answer 14

This was about the defendant who broke into a military base to be involved in a sit in which was against nuclear weapons. His immediate purpose was to break in and cause obstruction, despite his motive.

Question 15

Which case muddied the waters in regards to we should ignore motive when looking at criminal liability?

Answer 15

R v Steane

It could be argued that this is fair because he was forced into helping them he couldn’t choose to leave otherwise he would’ve lost his life.

Question 16

Was is oblique intent linked to?

Answer 16

D’s capacity to foresee the consequences of his action

Question 17

If D is not convicted of murder because they didn’t intend it, what would they be convicted of?

Answer 17

Manslaughter

Question 18

In oblique intent cases what must the defendant have done?

Answer 18

Intend or foresee prohibited consequences

Question 19

What is known as the starting point for foresight of consequences?

Answer 19

S.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967

Question 20

What does the CJA s8 state?

Answer 20

That in law the jury is not bound to infer that the defendant intended or foresaw a result of his actions just because it was a natural and probable consequence of them,

Question 21

A person does not need to be taken as intending the natural and probable consequence of his act simply because….

Answer 21

They were natural and probable.

Question 22

Up until 1985, it was assumed the prosecution could succeed on charging for a murder if they could prove what?

Answer 22

Intention to kill

Foresight that what you were doing would highly probably lead to v being killed (Hyam 1975)

Question 23

What did the case Maloney decide?

Answer 23

Foresight was no longer considered the same as intention

Question 24

It was decided that foresight is only evidence that there may be intention in which case?

Answer 24

Maloney

Question 25

What were the Maloney guidelines?

Answer 25

Did the jury think that the death or serious injury was a natural consequence of the defendants acts?

If so were they satisfied that the defendant could foresee the death or really serious injury as a natural consequence of his act?

Jury still does not have to infer intention even if the answer to both was yes

Question 26

In which case were the Maloney guidelines discredited?

Answer 26

R V Hancock and Shankland 1986

Question 27

In nedrick Lord lane tried to clarify guidelines for the jury by altering them one again as follows

Answer 27

Did the jury think that death or serious injury was virtually certain to occur as a consequence of the defendants acts

If so were the satisfied that the defendant foresaw death or serious injury as virtually certain

Question 28

The wording of the guidelines in nedrick was accepted in which case?

Answer 28

Woolin

Question 29

What was the case of wool in about?

Answer 29

D threw a baby towards a pram who then smacked his head against the wall

Question 30

What did Re A say about woolin?

Answer 30

They believed that the case had made it law that foresight of consequences was intention

Question 31

What did the case Mathews and Alleyne say about woolin?

Answer 31

Foresight is not intention. It is just a rule of evidence allowing the jury to find intention if it wishes although it does not have to

Question 32

What was the case Mathews and Alleyne about?

Answer 32

D dropped V from a 25 foot bridge into a river, v said he couldn’t swim. D did not try and rescue v. The judge directed the jury that d intended to kill because it was virtually certain v would die.

Question 33

What is mens rea?

Answer 33

Mens Rea is the guilty mind. It is the blame worthiness of a crime and varies from one to another.