Mens Rea

Question 1

Mohan

Answer 1

Court defined intention as to mean D’s motive or reason for doing the offence is irrelevant. It also makes clear that motive is not the same as intention

Question 2

Direct intent

Answer 2

D intends the specific consequence to occur

Question 3

Oblique intent

Answer 3

D intends one thing but the actual consequence which occurs is another thing

Question 4

Foresight of consequence

Answer 4

Where the Ds main aim was not the prohibited consequence. If in achieving the other thing d foresaw that he would also cause those consequences then he may be found guilty

Question 5

Staring point for FOC

S8 CJA 1967

Answer 5

It says a court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence shouldn’t assume he could foresee only if it’s a natural and probable consequence if those actions

Question 6

Moloney

2 Qs

Answer 6

HOL ruled FOC is only evidence of intention
Lord bridge said jurors should ask themselves 2 Qs was death or really serious injury a natural consequence and did the D foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his act?

Question 7

Hancock and shankland

Answer 7

Moloney guidelines held to be defective because word probable isn’t used like in CJA
Miners on bridge

Question 8

Nedrick

Qs

Answer 8

D held grudge against woman poured paraffin through letterbox. Child died in fire.
2 Qs how probable was the consequence which resulted from Ds voluntary act? Did D foresee that consequence?
So consequence must be a virtual certainty and D must have realised this

Question 9

Woollin

Answer 9

D threw 3 month old baby against wall. Law lords thought Qs in nedrick were not useful. Said word find should be used instead of infer

Question 10

What is a problem with the decision in woollin

Answer 10

Does word find instead of infer really improve clarity for judges? Yes suggests higher degree of proof but also no wont notice difference. Lord steyn said the effect of the direction is that a result foreseen as a virtual certainty is an intended result which blurs the lines between recklessness and FOC

Question 11

What are the 2 conflicting decisions and what principle did they follow

Answer 11

Re A - COA thought FOC is intention

Matthews and alleyne - COA held FOC is not intention

Question 12

Reform

Answer 12

Intention not defined in any statue
Draft criminal code was first suggestion
Most recent proposal in 2004 in LCs report murder manslaughter and infanticide
Never been implemented

Question 13

Why was the suggestion for intention in the draft criminal code criticised

Answer 13

Used phrase ‘being aware’ which risks blurring intention and recklessness
‘Ordinary course of events’ does not cater for situations where D is not sure if his main aim will be achieved e.g. Bomb only goes off 50% of the time
Person could be held to have intended a result that it was his purpose to avoid eg lord goff explanation father throwing children out window in a fire

Question 14

What is recklessness

Answer 14

Lower level of men’s rea where D knows there is a risk of consequence happening but takes risk

Question 15

Cunningham

Answer 15

D gas meter found not guilty as did not realise risk

Question 16

What were the 2 types of recklessness called and explanation

Answer 16

Subjective - where D realises the risk and decides to take it anyway
Objective - where an ordinary prudent person realised the risk

Question 17

Metropolitan police commissioner v Caldwell

Answer 17

Drunk decided to set fire to hotel
D could be guilty of certain offences even though he had not realised there was a risk
HOL held recklessness covered 2 situations where D realised the risk and where D had not thought about possibility of any risk

Question 18

Elliot v c

Answer 18

Second meaning of recklessness caused problems
D who had learning disabilities set fire to shed did not realise risk. Absurd to judge her by standards of ordinary adults

Question 19

G and another

Answer 19

2 kids set fire to bin
Overruled Elliott v c
HOL held D could not be guilty unless he had realised risk and decided to take it

Question 20

Adomako

Answer 20

Re introduced test of GNM initially thought recklessness was no longer relevant in law on manslaughter

Question 21

Lidar

Answer 21

D asked to leave public house V doorman dragged under Range Rover rear wheel
Confirmed that involuntary manslaughter could still be based on subjective recklessness

Question 22

Give an AO2 point for recklessness

Answer 22

Fair on D but not so fair in innocent victims and their families
Also Ds characteristics can be taken into account conflicts with legal principles in other areas of law such as duress and loss of control

Question 23

What is negligence

Answer 23

When a person fails to meet standards of the reasonable man. Objective test
Concept of negligence making a person liable well known in civil law but not criminal

Question 24

Sweet v parsley

Answer 24

Negligence
Cannabis
Not guilty no knowledge

Question 25

What is transferred malice

Answer 25

D can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different v

Question 26

Latimer

Answer 26

Belt bounced off mans face and stuck woman

Guilty even thought he had not mean to hit her

Question 27

Pembilton

Answer 27

D threw stone intending to hit someone but it hit a window

Intention to hit could be transferred to window

Question 28

Gnago

Answer 28

Conviction reinstated by SC held agreeing to shoot bandana man and also aiding and abetting the bandana mans attempt to murder him so transferred malice