Mens Rea CASES

Question 1

-DPP v Douglas & Hayes [1985] ILRM 25

Answer 1

CCA - If there is evidence that the reasonable person would have foreseen the natural probable consequence of the act that occurred and the fact that the accused foresaw the consequence the jury can infer from this and say that

the defendant intended the consequence. It will depend on the facts, and will need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was ‘an actual intention to cause death’. i.e.
3;
If one acts deliberately with a degree of appreciation of the unintended consequences intention will be inferred

Question 2

• Clifford v DPP [2008] IEHC 322 -

Answer 2

The more obscure the consequence, the less readily can the inference of an intention in that regard be made. i.e. The clearer the consequence the easier it will be to infer intention.
(Infer - concluding something from evidence/reasoning rather than from explicit statements.)

Question 3

-DPP v Murray [1977] IR 360 - (

Answer 3

Subjective recklessness approach adopted in Ireland). Endorsed the meaning of recklessness in the US - A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offence when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves culpability of a high degree.’

Question 4

-Re Hefferon Kearns Ltd. [19931 3 IR 191 -.

Answer 4

Reckless trading definition. Suggested they might develop an objective test

Question 5

• People (DPP) v McGrath - recklessness

Answer 5

However, this case restated on our position, which is one of subjectivity. Courts were clear on this. Defendant must see the risk that they are running. ‘An element of advertence is required

Question 6

-R v Lamb [1967] 2 ALL ER 1282 -

Answer 6

The law takes account of mistakes made in crisis situations. Negligence

Answer 7

Will physical abilities be accounted for e.g. age, blindness… Potentially according to Simester & Sullivan, because it would be absurd to hold a blind person negligent because they failed to prevent a child from climbing into a pool, as they cannot see the child. Negligence

Question 8

• Hanlon v Fleming [1981 ] IR 489 -

Answer 8

There is a difference between actual knowledge and direct knowledge. Actual knowledge is the reasonable mind which one would possess given the circumstances and facts of the case. e.g. If you are being sold a second hand bike for very cheap and the person has no idea the information regarding the bike. i.e. Belief can occur, but it will not suffice in regards to crimes which require knowledge, but direct knowledge is not necessary, however actual knowledge is.

Question 9

People v Foley

Answer 9

Knowledge can be inferred for wilful blind fulness. (As knowledge would have occurred if the plaintiff wanted to know

Question 10

DPP v Morgan [1975] 2 ALL ER 347 -

Answer 10

The key element is that it is an honest mistake. However, whether it is reasonable will lead to the credibility of the claim.

Question 11

-R v Reid /19731 3 ALL ER 1020 -

Answer 11

Mistake of the law is not an excuse.

Question 12

CC v Ireland & Others (20061 2 ILRM 161

Answer 12

• If an offence is to be one of strict liability the legislature must outline that the mental element does not need to be proven, this is because the general rule is that the guilty mind must be established in relation to each ingredient of the offence.