Mens Rea; Coincidence of AR + MR

Question 1

Subjective Fault

Answer 1

assessed by reference to the defendant’s state of mind. It requires the defendants wrongful conduct to be reflected in the state of mind accompanying his conduct.

These states of mind include:

• Intention (murder)
• Knowledge/Belief (handling stolen goods)
• Foresight (criminal damage)
• Willful (willful neglect of an infant)

Question 2

Objective Fault

Answer 2

Is assessed by reference to the standard of ordinary people and does not take into account the defendants own state of mind

Include:
Negligence
Carelessness
Recklessness

Question 3

Direct Intention

Answer 3

The intention of desire, aim, purpose, objective to create a result

Question 4

Indirect (oblique) Intention

Answer 4

D may intend a consequence although that consequence is not his/her objective if D foresees that it will occur as a result of what he/she is doing. The Greater the probability of a consequence then the more likely it will be foreseen.

R v Moloney
Hancock & Shankland
R v Woolin

Question 5

Recklessness: Objective

Answer 5

No Longer Exists Only Subjective Recklessness operates in Law

R v G&R

Question 6

Subjective Recklessness

Answer 6

D is consciously aware of the Risk of Harm resulting from his action. Even if you close your mind to the Risk, so long as you know of a risk it doesn’t need to be at the front of your mind

R v Cunningham
R v Stephenson
R v Parker

A person acts recklessly with respect to

• A circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist
• A result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur
• And it is, in the circumstances know to him, unreasonable to take that risk.

Question 7

Coincidence: Prosecution must prove

Answer 7

• D did something prohibited
• D was at fault
• Definitional and Temporal Match between the two

Question 8

Coincidence can be established if:

Answer 8

He has the mental fault element for more than 1 crime

• A’s fault element for the first attempted crime is sufficient for the actual crime committed (constructive manslaughter)
• Transferred Malice

Question 9

Doctrine of Transferred Malice

Answer 9

D commits the crime charged but the subject matter of the crime was other than D intended or foresaw.

DPP v Newbury Jones
R v Gore
Saunders & Archer

Question 10

If act and mind do not coincide in time this is not always fatal

Answer 10

1. Interpreting the conduct element as an omission: Miller

2. The continuing act doctrine: Fagan

Question 11

The Corpse Cases

Answer 11

If a killing by the first act would have been murder/manslaughter, a later destruction of the supposed corpse is also be murder/manslaughter

R v Thabo Meli
R v Church
R v LeBrun