Mens rea Flashcards
Intention, facts:
Most culpable form of mens rea. More blameworthy to cause harm deliberately than it is to do so carelessly.
Direct intention, definition:
Mohan: “a decision to bring about the commission of an offence no matter whether the defendant desired the consequences of his act or not.”
Oblique intention, case:
R v Woolin
Defendant threw baby in exasperation when would not stop crying. Appeal allowed by HoL.
Appropriate test for oblique formulated in Nedrick. Jury may find that a defendant intended an outcome if it was a virtually certain consequence of his actions and he realised this was the case.
Recklessness, facts:
Less culpable form of mens rea based on unjustified risk-taking.
Subjective recklessness, case:
Cunningham, subjective, ‘did defendant foresee a risk that his actions would cause the actus reus of the relevant offence?’
a) caused the actus reus;
b) realised that there was a risk that he would cause the actus reus.
In light of the awareness of risk, chose to proceed nonetheless, reckless.
Objective recklessness, case:
Caldwell, objective, ‘if he created an obvious risk that property would be destroyed or damaged and he recognised that risk and went on to take it, or failed to recognise that risk.
Overruled by R v G, because Caldwell imposed liability upon those who were incapable, through no fault of their own, operating at the standards of the reasonable man.
Was overruled because subjective was easier to avoid, and suggests that previously the law valued property more rigorously than it protected against harm to the person.
R v G test:
‘Was the defendant aware of a risk of the damage/destruction of property and, in the circumstances, was it unreasonable for her to take that risk?’
