Mens Rea - criminal law introduction Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Different levels of mens rea

A

intention
recklessness
negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Specific Intention

A

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 ‘’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Direct intention

A

the defendant wants a result and carries out an act to achieve it, built up through case law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Indirect intention

A

With indirect intention, the defendant intends one thing but another thing happens, did they foresee the consequence?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Nedrick (1986)

A

The defendant poured paraffin through a womans letterbox and set it alight, a child died in the ensuing fire. The defendant was originally convicted of murder but this was reduced to manslaughter
- how probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendants voluntary act?

and

Did the defendant foresee that consequence?

“the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Woolin (1998)

A

The appellant threw his 3 month old baby son on to a hard surface. The baby suffered a fractured skull and died. The trial judge directed the jury that if they were satisfied the defendant “must have realised and appreciated when he threw that child that there was a substantial risk that he would cause serious injury to it, then it would be open to you to find that he intended to cause injury to the child and you should convict him of murder.” The jury convicted of murder and also rejected the defence of provocation. The defendant appealed on the grounds that in referring to ‘substantial risk’ the judge had widen the definition of murder and should have referred to virtual certainty in accordance with Nedrick guidance. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal holding that there was no absolute obligation to refer to virtual certainty.

House of Lords held:

Murder conviction was substituted with manslaughter conviction. There was a material misdirection which expanded the mens rea of murder and therefore the murder conviction was unsafe. The House of Lords substantially agreed with the Nedrick guidelines with a minor modification. The appropriate direction is:
“Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.

The decision is one for the jury to be reached upon a consideration of all the evidence.”

infer and find need clarifying

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Matthew and Alleyne (2003)

A

Matthews (M), Alleyne (A) and two others threw a boy off a bridge into a river after he told them that he couldn’t swim.

He drowned, and the judge directed that if the boy’s death was appreciated by the defendants as a virtual certainty then the jury should convict of murder.

They were convicted and the CA dismissed their appeal. The appeal was based on the way the judge presented the “virtual certainty” rule, which was as a rule of law, not of evidence, by differing from the accepted form of “you may not convict unless…”

However there was held to be no real difference between the “virtual certainty rule” as a rule of law and a rule of evidence and therefore the appeal fails.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

definition of recklessness:

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Cunningham (1957)

A

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. He was charged under s 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 which provides ‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony …’ The trial judge directed the jury that malicious meant wicked. The jury convicted the defendant and he appealed.

Held:

Malicious means either 1) An actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or (2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e., the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).

Cunningham recklessness test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Stephenson (1979)

A

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. At his trial a consultant psychiatrist gave evidence that he had a long history of schizophrenia and this would mean that the defendant was quite capable of lighting a fire in a haystack without ever thinking of the danger involved.
Defendant’s conviction was quashed. The direction was a misdirection. The test should be entirely subjective, if the defendant did not foresee a risk of damage he should not be liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Caldwell (1982)

A

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. The hotel had 10 guests sleeping in the hotel at the time. Fortunately the fire was discovered and distinguished early and no people were actually harmed. The appellant was convicted of aggravated criminal damage under s.1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 and appealed in relation to the required level of recklessness. The defendant argued that he had given no thought as to the possible endangerment of life due to his intoxicated state.

House of Lords upheld his conviction and formulated what has become known as Caldwell recklessness:

A person is reckless as to whether property is destroyed or damaged where:
(1) he does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged and
(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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Objective test:

A

based on what a reasonable man would deem as a risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Subjective test:

A

Cunningham

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Elliot v C

A

Elliott v C [1983] 1 WLR 939

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. The magistrates applied the test laid down in R v Caldwell but inferred that in his reference to “an obvious risk” Lord Diplock had meant a risk which was obvious to the particular defendant. They acquitted the defendant because they found that the defendant had given no thought at the time to the possibility of there being a risk that the shed and contents would be destroyed, and this risk would not have been obvious to her or appreciated by her if she had thought about the matter. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated.

Held:

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v G and Another

A

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. In fact the burning newspapers set light to the wheelie bin and the fire spread to the Co-op shop and caused over £1m of damage.

Held:

The defendants’ convictions were quashed. The House of Lords overruled MPC v Caldwell [1982] AC 341.

The appropriate test of recklessness for criminal damage is:
“A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to -

(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;

(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;

and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Transferred malice:

A

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

17
Q

Latimer (1886)

A

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

18
Q

Pembliton (1874)

A

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