Mens Rea - Criminal Law

Question 1

What does mens rea mean?

Answer 1

Guilty Mind - the mental element of the offence

Question 2

What’s intention?

Answer 2

The decision to commit the act

Question 3

What’s motive and is it relevant?

Answer 3

Motive is the reason why the act was committed, but the defendants motive is irrelevant, the important point is that the D decided to bring about the prohibited consequence

Question 4

What’s direct intent?

Answer 4

D intends for the specific consequences to happen

Question 5

Whats oblique intent and what happened in Hancock and Shankland?

Answer 5

The D doesn’t desire an outcome as it isn’t in their aim or purpose. In Hancock and Shankland the D wants to stop the V’s car, so the D pushes a concrete block from a bridge onto the road (direct intent). However the driver is hit and killed by this (not an intended result - oblique intent)

Question 6

What’s foresight of consequences?

Answer 6

If the D foresaw the consequences they caused, they may be found guilty, under s8 of CJA 1967

Question 7

What happened in Moloney?

Answer 7

D shot his step dad with a gun in a “quick on the draw” incident. D said “ I didn’t aim the gun. I just pulled the trigger and he was dead “. His conviction for murder was quashed. HOL ruled that foresight of consequences isn’t intention, it’s evidence of intention.

Question 8

What happened in Nedrick?

Answer 8

D poured paraffin through a letter box, causing a fire where a child died. The jury isn’t entitled to infer necessary intention unless sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty

Question 9

What happened in Woollin?

Answer 9

D threw baby at pram, causing its death. The Law Lords held that the direction in Nedrick shouldn’t use the word “infer”, instead the jury should “find” the intention

Question 10

What’s subjective recklessness?

Answer 10

Where the defendant knows there’s a risk of a consequence, but decides to take that risk

Question 11

What happened in Cunningham?

Answer 11

The D fractured a gas pipe whilst trying to steal money from the meter and a woman in a nearby house inhaled the gas. He was charged for maliciously leaking a noxious substance, but there was an issue over the correct interpretation of the word maliciously. It was held D wasn’t guilty as he hadn’t intended to cause harm or taken a conscious risk

Question 12

What did the Law Lords agree in Savage?

Answer 12

Where an Act Of Parliament uses the word maliciously this means doing something intentionally or being subjectively reckless about the risk involved

Question 13

What are offences where recklessness is sufficient for MR?

Answer 13

Assault, battery, assault occasioning ABH and malicious wounding

Question 14

What used to be 2 levels of recklessness?

Answer 14

1. Subjective - where the D realised the risk, but decided to take it.
2. Objective - where an ordinary person would’ve realised the risk - the D is guilty even if they didn’t realise the risk

Question 15

What happened in Met Police Commissioner v Caldwell?

Answer 15

D drunkenly set fire to a hotel and was charged with arson. This means that D intended harm to life or was reckless. His conviction was upheld, despite D claiming he was so drunk, he didn’t realise people’s lives were at risk.

Question 16

What happened in Elliot v C?

Answer 16

D was a girl with learning difficulties and didn’t realise the risk that her act might set a shed on fire. A “reasonable person” would’ve seen this risk. The context of Caldwell didn’t consider the young or mentally handicapped, offending the jury’s sense of fairness.

Question 17

What are problems with subjective recklessness?

Answer 17

-It’s unfair to innocent victims and their families, as someone may have been seriously injured or even killed, yet the attacker may not be guilty if he or she wasn’t subjectively reckless. The law doesn’t give protection to innocent members of the public.
-Also, it can mean a defendant can avoid liability easily, as it must be proved the D was aware of the risk and it can be hard to prove what’s in the D’s mind.
- there’s a conflict between public policy and legal principles, public policy is based on public protection and legal principles impose liability where there’s fault

Question 18

What’s negligence?

Answer 18

A person is negligent if they fail to meet the standards of a reasonable person. However, it’s rarely sufficient for MR in criminal law

Question 19

What level of MR is negligence?

Answer 19

Negligence has much lower level of fault, so it’s not usually enough to make someone criminally liable

Question 20

when can negligence make someone criminally liable?

Answer 20

1. Gross negligence manslaughter - there has to be a very high degree of negligence, more than just civil negligence. E.g R v Adomako - the D failed to notice or respond to clear signs of the patients disconnection from the oxygen pipe during the operation. The HOL upheld D’s conviction for gross negligence manslaughter.
2. S3 of Road Traffic Act 1988 - careless and inconsiderate driving on a road or other public place without due care can make a person guilty.

Question 21

What’s transferred malice ?

Answer 21

The principle that the defendant can be guilty if they intended to commit a similar crime but against a different person.

Question 22

What happened in Latimer?

Answer 22

D aimed to hit a man with his belt, but missed and the belt struck a woman in the face. D was guilty of an assault against the woman, despite not intending to hit her.

Question 23

What’s the coincidence of AR and MR?

Answer 23

For an offence to take place, both AR and MR must be present at the same time. E.g in Church the D knocked a woman out and thought she was dead, so put her in a river. She drowned and his conviction for manslaughter was upheld, as both the AR and MR were combined in a series of acts.