Mens Rea

Question 1

What does malice aforethought mean?

Answer 1

It means the intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm

Question 2

What are the two types of intent?

Answer 2

Direct

Indirect

Question 3

What is direct intent?

Answer 3

Where the defendant want the result to occur and sets out to achieve it (premeditated murder)

Question 4

What is indirect intent?

Answer 4

Where the accused did not desire a particular result but in acting as he or she did they realised that it might occur

Question 5

What cases are relevant to indirect intent?

Answer 5

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)

Question 6

What year was the case of R v Hyam?

Answer 6

1972

Question 7

What case happened in 1972?

Answer 7

R v Hyam

Question 8

What was said in the case of R v Hyam (1972)?

Answer 8

The House of Lords rules that if the defendant foresaw the consequences of their actions as highly probable that meant they intended it.

Question 9

What case happened in 1985?

Answer 9

R v Moloney

Question 10

In what year was the case of R v Moloney?

Answer 10

1985

Question 11

What was said in the case of R v Moloney (1985)?

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Who created a two part test in R v Moloney (1985)?

Answer 12

Lord Bridge

Question 13

What did Lord Bridge do?

Answer 13

Create a two part test to assist establishing indirect intent

Question 14

What was the two part test Lord Bridge formulated?

Answer 14

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

Question 15

What case happened in 1986?

Answer 15

R v Hancock and Shankland

R v Nedrick

Question 16

What year was the case of R v Hancock and Shankland?

Answer 16

1986

Question 17

What happened in the case of R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)?

Answer 17

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’

Question 18

What did Lord Scarman say in the case of R v Hancock and Scarman (1986)?

Answer 18

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’

Question 19

What was the principle laid out in R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)?

Answer 19

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’

Question 20

In what year was the case of R v Nedrick?

Answer 20

1986

Question 21

What happened in the case of R v Nedrick (1986)?

Answer 21

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?

Question 22

What is the virtual certainty test?

Answer 22

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

Question 23

What case happened in 1999?

Answer 23

R v Woollin

Question 24

In what year was the case of R v Woollin?

Answer 24

1999

Question 25

What case happened in 2003?

Answer 25

R v Matthews and Alleyne

Question 26

In what year was the case of R v Matthews and Alleyne?

Answer 26

2003

Question 27

What is the mens rea for murder?

Answer 27

Malice aforethought

Question 28

What is the doctrine of transferred malice?

Answer 28

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

Question 29

What case is relevant to the doctrine of transferred malice?

Answer 29

Latimer (1886)

Question 30

What case happened in 1886?

Answer 30

Latimer

Question 31

What year was the case of Latimer?

Answer 31

1886

Question 32

What happened in the case of Latimer (1886)?

Answer 32

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.

Question 33

What happened in the case of R v Matthew and Alleyne (2003)?

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Why is the case of R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) relevant?

Answer 34

It is the end of the chain of causation for intention

Question 35

What happened in the case of Hyam (1972)?

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

What was the outcome of Hyam (1972)?

Answer 36

The House of Lords ruled if she foresaw the consequences of her actions as highly probably that meant she intended it

Question 37

Why did Moloney (1985) overrule Hyam (1972)?

Answer 37

It was declared to be bad law and that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention

Question 38

What happened in the case of Moloney (1985)?

Answer 38

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

Question 39

What was the outcome of Moloney (1985)?

Answer 39

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.

Question 40

What happened in the case of Hancock and Shankland?

Answer 40

Miners who were striking threw a concrete block off a motorway bridge to block the road but killed a taxi driver

Question 41

What was the outcome of Hancock and Shankland (1986)?

Answer 41

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’

Question 42

What happened in the case of Nedrick (1986)?

Answer 42

The defendant poured paraffin through the victims house and set it alight, killing a child.

Question 43

What was the outcome of Nedrick (1986)?

Answer 43

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?

Question 44

What happened in the case of Woolin (1998)?

Answer 44

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.

Question 45

What was the outcome of Woolin (1998)?

Answer 45

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.

Question 46

What happened in the case of Matthews and Alleyne (2003)?

Answer 46

The defendants threw the victim into a river and walked off, despite knowing he could not swim. As a result he drowned.

Question 47

What was the outcome of Matthews and Alleyne (2003)?

Answer 47

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

Question 48

What is the order of the cases for the chain of causation?

Answer 48

Hyam (1972)
Moloney (1985)
Hancock and Shankland (1986)
Nedrick (1986)
Woollin (1998)
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)