Mens Rea - criminal law introduction Flashcards
Different levels of mens rea
- intention
- recklessness
- negligence
Specific Intention
intention is always subjective, the court must believe that the defendant desired the specific consequences of their actions
Mohan:
‘’ a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused power, no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not ‘’
Direct intention
the defendant wants a result and carries out an act to achieve it, built up through case law
Indirect intention
With indirect intention, the defendant intends one thing but another thing happens, did they foresee the consequence?
Nedrick (1986)
The defendant poured paraffin through a womans letterbox and set it alight, a child died in the ensuing fire.
Legal Principle = Did the defendant know injury was a virtual certainty due to actions
Woolin (1998)
Legal Principle = Change the word infer intention to find
D threw his three month old baby at the wall when frustrated while feeding
Matthew and Alleyne (2003)
Legal Principle = Jury decide whether D foresaw injury or death
D’s dropped V off a bridge knowing he couldn’t swim and left before they knew he reached the side
definition of recklessness:
a situation where the defendant knows that there is a risk that his actions will lead to harm but goes on to take the risk regardless.
a lower form of mens rea from intention
Cunningham
Cunningham (1957)
focus from an objective to a subjective standard, influencing the determination of mens rea in criminal liability.
The appellant ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. This caused gas to escape. The gas seeped through small cracks in the wall to the neighbouring property where his future mother-in-law was sleeping and was poisoned by the gas.
Stephenson (1979)
The appellant was homeless and schizophrenic. He found refuge in a haystack where he made a hollow and tried to go to sleep. He was cold so he lit a fire inside the hollow to keep himself warm. Inevitably the whole haystack caught fire and he ran off and was picked up by the police. The defendant contended that he never thought of the possibility of a the whole stack catching fire.
The test should be entirely subjective, if the defendant did not foresee
e a risk of damage he should not be liable.
Caldwell (1982)
The appellant had been working at a hotel and had a grudge against his employer. One night after consuming a large quantity of alcohol he went to the hotel and started a fire
(1) he does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged
(2) when he does the act he either has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or has recognised that there was some risk involved and has nonetheless gone on to do it.
Caldwell recklessness
Objective test:
based on what a reasonable man would deem as a risk
Subjective test:
Cunningham
Elliot v C
The defendant was a 14-year old girl of low intelligence who had started a fire in a shed. She had poured white spirit on the floor and set it alight.
If the risk is one which would have been obvious to a reasonably prudent person, once it has also been proved that the particular defendant gave no thought to the possibility of there being such a risk, it is not a defence that because of limited intelligence or exhaustion she would not have appreciated the risk even if she had thought about it.
R v G and Another
Caldwell recklessness overruled:
1. aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
2. a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
3. circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.”
The two appellants, aged 11 and 12, went camping for a night without their parents’ permission. The boys found some old newspapers outside the Co-op which they lit with a lighter and then threw them under a wheelie bin. They then left without putting them out assuming they would naturally burn out.
Transferred malice:
if a defendant attempts to commit a crime against one person but, in doing so, actually commits a similar crime against someone else, they can still be held guilty of the offence against the actual victim
Latimer
Latimer (1886)
the defendant aimed to hit a man with his belt, the belt recoiled and hit a woman in the face, as both offences were similar the D was found guilty of the offence against the women
transferred malice
Pembliton (1874)
The defendant had been involved in a fight and threw a stone at his attackers, the stone broke a window. The defendants intention to hit his attackers could not be transferred to the window.
transferred malice
