Mens Rea

Question 1

What is mens rea

Answer 1

• it’s the mental element of the crime. the intention to commit a crime

Question 2

Direct Intent

Answer 2

• Direct intent can be said to exist where the D embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desires result which occurs e.g. D wants to kill gf gets a knife sharpens it and kills her

Question 3

Oblique Intent

Answer 3

• Oblique intent exists where the D embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result e.g placing bomb on plane he knows wife is on knowing other people will die

Question 4

Subjective test

Answer 4

• A subjective test is concerned with the defendant’s perspective. In relation to oblique intent it would be concerned only with whether the defendant did foresee the degree of probability of the result occurring from his actions.

Question 5

Objective Test

Answer 5

• An objective test looks at the perspective of a reasonable person. I.e. Would a reasonable person have foreseen the degree of probability of the result occurring from the defendant’s actions.

Question 6

MOHAN [1976] defined Direct Intention

Answer 6

• “a decision to bring about, a particular consequence no matter whether the D desired that consequence of his act or not”
• D’s aim/purpose/objective- what is D trying to achieve?

Question 7

HALES [2005] Direct intention

Answer 7

• D stole a motor cycle pursued by the police
  Caught by the police, but managed to escape when being handcuffed.
• Got into the police car, and deliberately reversed over the police officer in order to escape.
• Police officer seriously injured, and later died
• D argued on appeal that D did not desire death, motive was to escape, it was not his aim/purpose to kill/cause GBH.
• Rejected: D was prepared to kill in order to escape, he had DI-Motive and Desire.

Question 8

HYAM v DPP [1975] Oblique intention

Answer 8

• D poured petrol through the letterbox of her rival, she then put newspaper in the letter box and lit it. B and her son escaped , but B’s two daughters were killed.
• D’s intention was not to kill, but to scare B
• D convicted of murder

Question 9

MOLONEY [1985]

Answer 9

• D had been drinking w step-father. They had a competition who could load the shotguns in the shortest time.
• D shot his step father, killing him.
• D claimed he did not aim the gun, he just pulled the trigger and he had no idea it would hurt his step father.
• HL quashed D’s conviction and replaced it with manslaughter.

Question 10

HANCOCK AND SHANKLAND

Answer 10

• Ds threw a concrete block from a bridge over the motorway on which a miner was being taken to work by a taxi, and police escort. The block hit the taxi’s windscreen and killed the driver.
• Ds said their intention was not to kill or harm anyone.
• Ds admitted guilty of manslaughter, but Prosecution did not accept those admissions and tried Ds for murder.

Question 11

WOOLLIN [1998] Oblique Intent

Answer 11

• D lost his temper and threw his three month old against a hard surface.
• D claimed it was not his desire or purpose to kill or cause serious harm.
• trial judge added “if the jury were satisfied that D realised when he threw that child that there was a substantial risk that he would cause injury to it, it would be open to you to find that he intended to cause injury to the child and you should convict him of murder.”
• D was convicted of Murder

Question 12

Transferred Malice

Answer 12

LATIMER

- D swung a belt, tried to hit V, but caught him slightly. The main force of the belt hit V2. V2 was severely injured.

Question 13

Coincidence of AR and MR

Answer 13

• Basic rule : Each AR element should have a MR element that corresponds to it

Question 14

THABO MELI coincidence

Answer 14

• Ds hit V over the head, and then as planned, attempted to disguise what they had done by pushing V over the cliff. However, V didn’t die from being hit, but form exposure at the bottom of the cliff.
• Ds had MR for murder when hitting V, but it was not this act that caused death. When pushed over the cliff this act caused the death but because Ds thought V already dead, Ds had no MR.
• Convicted of murder,

Question 15

CHURCH coincidence

Answer 15

• D began to strangle V until she passed out. He had the MR for manslaughter at the time. Thinking D was dead, D tried to hide V’s body by throwing it in the river. V was not dead, and drowned.
• D thought V dead, No MR at the time committed the act that caused the death. Convicted of manslaughter

Question 16

Recklessness

Answer 16

• being reckless refers to the taking of an unjustified risk

Question 17

CUNNINGHAM recklessness

Answer 17

• did the defendant foresee the harm that in fact occurred, might occur from his actions, but nevertheless continue regardless of the risk.
• D had tore a coin-operated gas meter away from a coal-gas pipe to steal money. Gas escaped and seeped through the wall into an adjoining house where H inhaled it
• D was charged with unlawfully and maliciously administering or causing to be administered a noxious thing to a person thereby endangering the life of that person and causing them GBH

Question 18

CALDWELL recklessness

Answer 18

• D had a row with the owner of a hotel where he had done some work. He got drunk and set the building on fire. The fire was extinguished before serious damage resulted or any harm caused to a person
• D charged being criminal damage being reckless as to the endangering life
• Defence: self-induced intoxication, he was so drunk that the thought of people being in the hotel did not occur to him.
• D convicted

Question 19

ELLIOT v C recklessness

Answer 19

A 14 year old girl of low intelligence was convicted of — - Criminal Damage after she poured white spirits on the floor of a shed and set it on fire.

• Due to her age/learning difficulties she did not appreciate the risk of fire and even if she had stopped to think about it, she was incapable of recognising the risk
• The Divisional Court D ls still liable even though she did not foresee the risk, her age/learning difficulties could not be taken into account. The damage would have been obvious to a reasonable person and the appeal was allowed.

Question 20

R v G recklessness

Answer 20

-The D’s were two boys, went camping w/out parental permission, entered a shop where they found a bundle of newspapers. They set fire and threw them under a large dustbin without putting out the fire. The dustbin caught fire and the fire spread to the shop. The damage was approx. 1 million.
-The boys were charged with arson.
D’s case was that they expected the fire to extinguish. It was accepted that neither of the Ds appreciated that there was a risk of the fire spreading

Question 21

Negligence

Answer 21

• The test is whether D’s behaviour fell below the standard of what we would expect of a reasonable person in D’s Situation
• This requires the prosecution to establish that the defendant owed a duty of care, was in breach of duty which resulted in death.
• regards to gross negligence manslaughter
• What was D’s Duty of care?
• Did D breach that duty of care?

Question 22

R v ADOMAKO negligence

Answer 22

• “whether the conduct of the D was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgment to a criminal act or omission.”