Mens Rea Flashcards
What does malice aforethought mean?
It means the intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm
What are the two types of intent?
Direct
Indirect
What is direct intent?
Where the defendant want the result to occur and sets out to achieve it (premeditated murder)
What is indirect intent?
Where the accused did not desire a particular result but in acting as he or she did they realised that it might occur
What cases are relevant to indirect intent?
R v Hyam (1972) R v Moloney (1985) R v Hancock and Shankland (1986) R v Nedrick (1986) R v Woolllin (1999) R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
What year was the case of R v Hyam?
1972
What case happened in 1972?
R v Hyam
What was said in the case of R v Hyam (1972)?
The House of Lords rules that if the defendant foresaw the consequences of their actions as highly probable that meant they intended it.
What case happened in 1985?
R v Moloney
In what year was the case of R v Moloney?
1985
What was said in the case of R v Moloney (1985)?
Hyam was declared to be bad law and that just because someone foresaw something it did not automatically mean they intended it. So Lord Bridge formulated a two part test:
Was the death or injury a natural consequence of the defendants act?
Did the defendant foresee that?
If yes they the jury could infer the defendant intended it
Who created a two part test in R v Moloney (1985)?
Lord Bridge
What did Lord Bridge do?
Create a two part test to assist establishing indirect intent
What was the two part test Lord Bridge formulated?
Was the death or serious injury a natural consequence of the defendants act?
Did the defendant foresee that?
If yes they the jury could infer the defendant intended it
What case happened in 1986?
R v Hancock and Shankland
R v Nedrick
What year was the case of R v Hancock and Shankland?
1986
What happened in the case of R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)?
Lord Scarman stated the guideline in Moloney was ‘unsafe, defective and misleading’ and should reference the probability of the consequence happening. He said it should be explained to the jury as ‘the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and if the consequence was foreseen then the greater the probability the consequence was intended’
What did Lord Scarman say in the case of R v Hancock and Scarman (1986)?
Lord Scarman stated the guideline in Moloney was ‘unsafe, defective and misleading’ and should reference the probability of the consequence happening. He said it should be explained to the jury as ‘the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and if the consequence was foreseen then the greater the probability the consequence was intended’
What was the principle laid out in R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)?
He said it should be explained to the jury as ‘the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and if the consequence was foreseen then the greater the probability the consequence was intended’
In what year was the case of R v Nedrick?
1986
What happened in the case of R v Nedrick (1986)?
The court of appeal crystallised the rulings in Moloney and Hancock and created the virtual certainty test, consisting of the following questions:
How probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendants voluntary act?
Did the defendant foresee the consequence as virtually certain?
What is the virtual certainty test?
How probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendants voluntary act?
Did the defendant foresee the consequence as virtually certain?
Only if the jury are satisfied that death or GBH were virtually certain from the D’s act can intention be inferred
What case happened in 1999?
R v Woollin
In what year was the case of R v Woollin?
1999
What case happened in 2003?
R v Matthews and Alleyne
In what year was the case of R v Matthews and Alleyne?
2003
What is the mens rea for murder?
Malice aforethought
What is the doctrine of transferred malice?
Where a defendant intends to kill or cause serious injury to somebody but accident kills another can be found guilty of the murder of that person
What case is relevant to the doctrine of transferred malice?
Latimer (1886)
What case happened in 1886?
Latimer
What year was the case of Latimer?
1886
What happened in the case of Latimer (1886)?
The defendant was having an argument in a pub, he took his belt off and swing it at his intended victims but hit a bystander instead. He was convicted of malicious wounding.
What happened in the case of R v Matthew and Alleyne (2003)?
The defendants were appealing against their murder convictions stating the trial judge went beyond the virtual certainty test and had equated foresight with intention. The court accepted this but said they had appreciated the virtual certainty of his death and as he couldn’t swim and they didn’t intend to save him. So there convictions were upheld
Why is the case of R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) relevant?
It is the end of the chain of causation for intention
What happened in the case of Hyam (1972)?
The defendant put a blazing newspaper through the letter box of her ex boyfriends new girlfriends house. In the process she killed two children. She argued she did not want to kill the children, just set the house on fire and scare the woman.
What was the outcome of Hyam (1972)?
The House of Lords ruled if she foresaw the consequences of her actions as highly probably that meant she intended it
Why did Moloney (1985) overrule Hyam (1972)?
It was declared to be bad law and that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention
What happened in the case of Moloney (1985)?
The defendant and his stepfather had been drinking together then engaged in a competition to see who could load and fire a gun the fastest. Moloney shot his step father
What was the outcome of Moloney (1985)?
The Moloney guidelines were created, which asks the jury two questions:
Was death or serious injury a natural consequence of the defendants act?
Did the defendant foresee it?
If yes to both questions the jury could infer the defendant intended it.
What happened in the case of Hancock and Shankland?
Miners who were striking threw a concrete block off a motorway bridge to block the road but killed a taxi driver
What was the outcome of Hancock and Shankland (1986)?
It was held the Moloney guidelines were ‘unsafe and misleading’. The House of Lords adapted the Moloney guidelines to include probability - ‘the greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it is the consequence was foreseen. The greater this probability the greater the probability the consequence was also intended’
What happened in the case of Nedrick (1986)?
The defendant poured paraffin through the victims house and set it alight, killing a child.
What was the outcome of Nedrick (1986)?
The test for intention changed again. The jury must now ask:
Was the death or serious injury a virtual certainty to result from the defendants illegal act?
Did the defendant see this as a virtual certainty?
What happened in the case of Woolin (1998)?
The defendant’s three month old baby died after he grew frustrated with him and threw him against the room. He claimed he had not wanted the child to die.
What was the outcome of Woolin (1998)?
The judge told the jury they could infer intention of there was a substantial risk he could cause harm to the baby. However the House of Lords said they should have used the term virtual certainty in line with Nedrick and changed infer to find.
What happened in the case of Matthews and Alleyne (2003)?
The defendants threw the victim into a river and walked off, despite knowing he could not swim. As a result he drowned.
What was the outcome of Matthews and Alleyne (2003)?
Their murder convictions were uphold. The jury were told they must find intention of they foresaw as virtually certainty that the victim would be killed or seriously injured. They said it was ‘impossible’ the defendants could not have drawn this inference
What is the order of the cases for the chain of causation?
Hyam (1972) Moloney (1985) Hancock and Shankland (1986) Nedrick (1986) Woollin (1998) Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
