Mens Rea

Question 1

The liability equation

Answer 1

Actus Reus + Mens Rea / Strict Liability + Absence of Defences = Criminal Liability

Question 2

Mens Rea Meaning

Answer 2

Guilty Mind

Question 3

S. 18 / S. 20.

Answer 3

Mens Rea is Distinguishing while the Actus Reus is the same

Question 4

Direct Intention v Indirect Intention (Oblique)

Answer 4

D wants to scare occupiers of a flat so that they move out, so pushes lighted paper through letter box.

Direct intention:

• A started the fire to scare the people to move out

Indirect intention:

• Occupiers child dies as a result of fire that starts

Question 5

Case Authority for Direct Intent

Answer 5

R v Mohan (1976)

Case of the police officer that had to jump out of the way for the defendant as he speeded up.

Wanting to carry out the act and not the result

Question 6

Blameworthyness of intents

Answer 6

1. Most blameworthy: Direct
2. Obligue Intent
3. Recklessness
4. Strict Liability

Question 7

Indirect intent case authorities

Answer 7

1. R v Nedrick (1986)

• D pours paraffin through letterbox, child dies
  “outcome was virtually certain” D could have reasonably forseen the outcome

2. R v Woollin (1998)
Man throughs child against wall

• Death or GBH was virtually certain

3. R v Matthews & Alleyne (2003)

• 2 people throw man from the bridge, man dies because he cant swim
• Affirmed decision of Woollin, Virtual certain test remains in place

Question 8

Recklessness definition:

Answer 8

Defendant know there is a risk, but goes ahead anyway.

Question 9

Case authorities on recklessness

(non fatal offences against the person)

Question 10

Objective v Subjective recklessness

Answer 10

Objective:

What the reasonable man would see as reckless
Did the average person think that an act is reckless?

Subjective:

What the individual would see as reckless
The subjective perception, did the defendant think he is reckless?

Question 11

Case authority recklessness

(subjective recklessness)

Answer 11

R v Cunningham (1957)

• D takes money from the gasmeter, disconnecting it causes gas posining to V

The correct test for malice was whether the defendant had either actual intent to cause harm or was reckless as to the possibility of causing foreseeable harm. This is known as “Cunningham Recklessness”. The jury should have been left to decide whether, even without intending to cause harm, the appellant removed the gas meter despite foreseeing that its removal could cause harm to his future mother-in-law.

D knows there is a risk, takes it anyway

Not limited to ill vill towards the Victim

Even when committing a crime wasnt an objective but commiting it could have been forseen

Question 12

Distinguishing

Recklesness from Oblique Intent

Answer 12

• *- What was D trying to achieve?**
• if answer is the same as the result we have direct intent
• If the answer is other than the result we turn to oblique intent
• If the result is an inevitable consequence of achieving the primary purpose (virtual certainty test):
  1. R v Nedrick (1986)
  2. R v Woollin (1998)

Question 13

Basic & Specific Intent crimes

Answer 13

Specific intent crimes:

• Intention only is required
  (direct or indirect intent)
• Murder, s.18 OAPA,
  Theft, Burglary, Robbery

Basic intent crimes:

• Recklessness is acceptable
  (direct, indirect or recklessness)
• Involuntary manslaughter, s. 20 OAPA

Assault, Battery

Relevant for the availability of defence

Question 14

Transferred Malice Defintion

Answer 14

Where the mens rea of a crime directed at one person is transferred to the unintended victim of the crime

Question 15

Case authorities Transferred Malice

Answer 15

R v Latimer (1886)
Soldiers argument with another man in the pub, took of his belt, swings it and missed the intended victim, wounded the landlady

• Mens Rea is to hurt the intended victim, hits a different unintended victim - Actual intention is transferred

R v Pembliton (1969)

Throw stone at intended victims, stone breaks window

Actus reus is the broken window

Intent is to injure and the result is criminal damage

When the actus reus is a different one, the malice can not be transferred!

R v Mitchell (1983)

D fight with other man in post office, D pushes intended victim, intended victim falls onto elderly lady (V), sustains injuries, V later dies

• The intention to assault is transferred
• Actus reus is one of violence, the final actus reus is also one of violence = Malice can be transferred