Mens Rea Cases

Question 1

R v Mohan (1975)

Answer 1

Supports Intention (general)

Question 2

1) Moloney (1985)
2) Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Answer 2

1) Foresight of Consequences- only evidence of intention, not intention in itself.
2) Moloney guidelines used to convict D’s, but on appeal quashed.

Question 3

R v Nedrick (1986)
Woolin (1998)

Answer 3

• Shows that the 2 earlier judgments made in regards to the foresight of consequences needed to be made clearer.

Question 4

Matthews v Alleyne (2003)

Answer 4

Confirms test for Foresight of Consequences

Question 5

R v Cunningham (1957)

Answer 5

Case used to establish that D is reckless

Question 6

R v Savage (1992)

Answer 6

Confirmed principles for Cunningham in respect of Maliciously

Question 7

R v Adomako (1994)

Answer 7

Crim offence of Manslaughter committed through ‘gross negligence’. More than just civil negligence and must be so bad to be crim

Question 8

R v Latimer (1886), R v Mitchell (1983)

Answer 8

Transferred Malice- D can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a diff V

Question 9

R v Pembilton (1874)

Answer 9

Transferred Malice cannot be used- When D intended a completely diff offence- Mens Rea completely diff then D may not be guilty of an offence

Question 10

Thabo-Meli v R (1954)

Answer 10

Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Question 11

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986)

Answer 11

Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea- continuing act.