mens rea and strict liabilty Flashcards
what is mens rea translated to
guilty mind
when can the mens rea be proven
after the actus reus is proven
at what point of the crime is the mens rea looked at
at the time of offence
what are the three levels of mr
intention
subjective recklessness
negligence
what crimes don’t have to prove mr
strict liability crimes
what are the two types of intention
direct intention
oblique intention
what is direct intention
the highest form of mr
where the aim/propose is to bring the result
what case formed direct intention
R v mohan 1976
what mr do most cases have
direct intention
what’s oblique intention
where the prohibited consiquence is virtually certain
the d realises this
what rule is oblique intent based on
rules of foresight of consiquences
what case confirmed the model direction for oblique intention
R v woollin 2000
what happened in r v wollin
d threw 3 month baby on hard surface
didn’t mean to kill but did
it was clear this could happen and so d was given manslaughter
what’s subjective recklessness
d knows there’s a risk of prohibited consequences but does it anyway
what case is subjective recklessness based on
cunningham 1957
what happened in cunningham
d tore a gas meter of the wall to steal
he didn’t realise the risk that gas could leak into a house
d wasn’t guilty
what case confirmed the idea of subjective recklessness
r v savage 1992
what’s negligence
lowest form of mr
where the d didn’t act in a way a reasonable person would in the circumstances
what’s gross negligence manslaughter
d owes a duty of care to v and breached this so b dies
and action are so grossly negligent that it’s a crime
what’s transfred malice + a case
d intends to harm 1 person
actions harm another
mr is transferred
gnango
what happens in gnango
d in a fight with x
x shot passer by
d charged with aiding and abetting murder of passer by
what happened in pembliton case 1884
d on street fight
d threw stone at v but hit a window
mr can’t be transferred so convictions quashed
what’s general malice
where there’s no particular victim just an aim to harm as many as possible
eg a terrorist and a bomb
what’s the contemporaneity rule
the idea that the mr and ar must be present at the same time/in the same continuing actions
what happened in fagan v mpc 1968
d told to move car
moves it on v foot
v tells d to move again
d refuses
d convicted of assault of pc
ar and mr are in the same continual act so guilty
what is a strict liability case
don’t require an mr
must prove all ar
ar must be voluntary bar absolute liability cases
what happened in harrow v shah 1999
d owns a news agent and constantly tells employees not to sell lottery tickets to under 16s
one sells to 13 yrold
d was still guilty as the act is still an offence
how are cases decided to be strict liable cases
there is a presumption that mr is required
if they decide it dosent it will become strict liability
what must the ar prove in strict liability cases
must prove d conduct voluntary
what are the key points of strict liability cases
ar must be proved
must be voluntary
no mr
no due diligence
no defence of mistake
name a statute that states there no mr
contempt of court act 1981 s1
why are strict liability cases a thing
for offences seen as ‘not criminal’ like selling underage alcohol
to help protect society
to encourage higher standards
what punishment are you likely to get from a strict liability case
a fine
what don’t people like strict liability cases
ppl argue blameless people are found guilty (not fair)
