mens rea: intention and recklessness Flashcards
what are the forms of mens rea?
belief
recklessness
intention
knowledge
dishonesty
negligence?
what is direct intent?
D’s aim/purpose
d desires and foresees consequences
what could be the ‘common sense’ understanding of intention
what is oblique/indirect intent?
D don’t desire, but does foresee consequences
degree of foresight?
what is the meaning of oblique intention?
where it is not D’s aim or purpose to bring about a prohibited result, but he foresees that result as virtually certain to occur as a result of his actions.
where may a jury find intention?- r v Woollin
- where death or serious injury was a ‘virtual certainty’ as a result of Ds actions, and
-appreciated that this was the case
what was the law prior to woollin?
people confused as to whether this was subjectively or objectively assessed. after woollin intention is subjectively assessed
what does DPP v smith 1961 say?
-presumption that D intends the natural and probable consequences of his act
-objectively standard of intention applied
what did the criminal justice act of 1967 do?
- reversed the position in smith
-confirmed that intention is subjectively assessed
what was moloneys (1985) guidelines from lord bridge?
Was the consequence a ‘natural consequence’ of D’s voluntary act? (objective question)
Did D foresee death the consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? (subjective question)
Hancock & Shankland [1986] AC 455 – Lord Scarman:
Criticised the Moloney guidelines
the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely that it was foreseen, and the greater the probability that it was intended
Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025, CA
Jury may infer intention where death / serious injury was a ‘virtual certainty’ as a result of D’s actions, and
D appreciated that this was the case
Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82, HL
House of Lords adopted Nedrick test
Changed word “infer” to “find”
Jury may find intention where death / serious injury was a ‘virtual certainty’ as a result of D’s actions, and
D appreciated that this was the case.
Matthews and Alleyne [2003] 2 Cr App R 30
Woollin does not lay down a substantive rule of law
Foresight is merely evidence from which intention can (not must) be inferred. This is for the jury to decide, not the Judge
recklessness- what test is it?
-subjective
-D must have foreseen that the harm might occur but gone ahead and acted anyway
-one test was applied to offences against the person (Cunningham)
-another test was applied to criminal damage (MPC V caldwell)
what is the test for criminal damage? MPS v Caldwell 1982
Limb 1:
D recklessif he does an act which creates an obvious risk of damageand
he does not give any thought to the possibility of there being any suchrisk.
Limb 2:
D reckless if he recognises that there is some risk involved and, nonetheless, goes on todoit.
