Mens Rea Flashcards
What type of offence does not require a ‘mens rea’?
Strict liability offences
What are the levels of mens rea?
1) Intention
2) Subjective recklessness
3) Negligence
What case provides a definition of ‘intent’?
What definition is given?
R v Mohan (1975)
‘The decision to bring about a prohibited consequence’
Facts: D drove vehicle at policeman fast only for policeman to jump out of the way at the last moment.
R v Mohan (1975)
What does this case demonstrate regarding mens rea?
The definition of intent.
That motive does not equal intent.
‘The decision to bring about a prohibited consequence’
Facts: D drove vehicle at policeman fast only for policeman to jump out of the way at the last moment.
What case demonstrates that motive does not equal intent?
R v Mohan (1975)
Also establishes the definition of intent.
What case demonstrates the difference between oblique and direct intent?
Hancock and Shankland (1986)
Facts: D’s intended to scare V into not attending work by throwing a cement block onto the road in front of V car but concrete actually hit V and killed him.
Hancock and Shankland (1986)
What does this case demonstrate regarding mens rea?
The diferrence between oblique and direct intent.
Facts: D’s intended to scare V into not attending work by throwing a cement block onto the road infront of V car but concrete actually hit V and killed him.
What is the leading case on the principle of ‘foresight of consequences?
Woollin (1998)
Facts: D threw his 3 month old baby towards his pram but the baby sustained fatal head injuries. The jury was directed not to ‘find’ an intent for murder unless they felt that death or serious bodily harm was virtually certain.
Woollin (1998)
What does this case demonstrate regarding mens rea?
The leading case on ‘foresight of consequences’.
Facts: D threw his 3 month old baby towards his pram but the baby sustained fatal head injuries. The jury was directed not to ‘find’ an intent for murder unless they felt that death or serious bodily harm was virtually certain.
What statute provides the definition of ‘foresight of consequence’?
s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
Provides the definition of ‘foresight of consequence’
What does s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 state regarding foresight of consequence?
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence:
a) shall not be bound to infer that he intended the consequence by reason of it being a natural consequence but
b) by reference to all the evidence it is likely (virtually certain) that D realised the consequence of his actions.
What cases developed the principle of ‘foresight of consequences’?
Moloney (1985)-Quick draw incident
Hancock and Shankland (1986)-Cement block onto road
Nedrick (1986)-Paraffin through letter box
Woollin (1998)-Threw baby at pram
What case shows that foresight of consequence is NOT intention, it is evidence of intention?
Moloney (1985)
Facts: D was drunk with step father and both were competing to load a shotgun the quickest-V dared D to pull trigger and D did killing the V. Conviction for murder quashed by HoL.
Moloney (1985)
What does this case demonstrate regarding intention?
That foresight of consequence is not intention.
Facts: D was drunk with step father and both were competing to load a shotgun the quickest-V dared D to pull trigger and D did killing the V. Conviction for murder quashed by HoL.
