Mens Rea - Intention and Recklessness Flashcards
Mens Rea for Murder
Malice aforethought.
An intention to kill (express malice) or an intention to cause GBH (implied malice)
R v Vickers [1957]
An intention to cause GBH (implied malice)
DPP v Smith (1960)
GBH is “really serious harm”.
R v Saunders (1985)
GBH just means “serious harm”.
What are the 2 types of intention?
Direct intent and Oblique intent
R v Maloney (1985)
Direct Intent
- Intention is to be given its ordinary everyday meaning
- It is the purpose or objective of his act.
- Subjective test
R v Woollin (1999)
Oblique Intent
- was death or serious harm (or other required outcome) a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY?
AND
- did the accused appreciate this to be so (ie see it out of corner of eye// as unfortunate side effect)
The jury may find it is evidence of an intent not that it IS an intent.
R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
Intention to kill is proved if the jury are satisfied that the defendant had appreciated that there was a virtual certainty of death.
Chandler v DPP (1964)
- An individual can be taken to intend both his ends and the means through which he will achieve them.
- Immobilised an aircraft at an RAF station to demonstrate against nuclear weapons.
R v G and another [2003]
Recklessness
- did the accused foresee the risk of the outcome OR likelihood of such a risk arising ( Subjective)
AND
- Did he/she go on to take that risk AND (in light of their awareness?) was it objectively unreasonable to take that risk or was there some social utility in taking it?
The above is a composition of the tests from Cunningham and R v G
Transferred Malice
Doctrine allowing the mens rea to transfer from the intended harm to the actual harm.
R v Latimer (1886)
If you intend to harm one person, and in doing so, harm another, the intention to harm is transferred to the actual harm.
R v Pembliton (1874)
The defendant must have had the mens rea for the crime charged.
If throwing a stone at a person and incidentally breaking a window, you won’t be found for criminal damage because lack the intention.
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise moment when he commits the actus reus.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
(Continuing Act Theory)
If the actus reus is a continuing act, the defendant only has to have the mens rea at some point.
Fagan accidentally drove onto a policeman’s foot. Policeman asked him to move, but Fagan refused and put the handbrake on. Charged with assaulting a police officer. Didn’t have mens rea until he engaged the handbrake.
Thabo Meli (1954)
One Transaction Principle
Where the victim is harmed as a result of numerous acts committed by the defendant, those acts will be considered as one transaction.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter if the defendant didn’t have the mens rea at the time of the fatal act.
Appellants hits V over the head with intent to kill him. Thinking he was dead they rolled his body over the cliff. V died of exposure
R v Church (1966)
(One Transaction Principle)
Where the victim is harmed as a result of numerous acts committed by the defendant, those acts will be considered as one transaction.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter if the defendant didn’t have the mens rea at the time of the fatal act.
D attacked V, believed her to be dead, threw her in river. Was alive and died of drowning.
R v Masilela (1968)
If the defendants earlier acts, which were committed with mens rea, are the eventual cause of death, defendant will be found to have had the mens rea.
Defendants hit deceased over head, throttled with a tie, and set house on fire. Died as a result of the fire. Had he not been unconscious would have escaped.
AG’s Ref (No 4 of 1980) [1981]
If there are multiple causes which could have caused death, it is unnecessary to prove which act caused the death.
R v Bailey (1800)
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Convicted of an offence created by a statute enacted whilst he was at sea. Irrelevant.
R v Smith (1974)
A defendant might make a mistake as to some element of the actus reus, which will prevent him from having the mens rea.
Man damaging wall whilst removing wiring from landlord’s house was not guilty of recklessly damaging property belonging to another, because he didn’t know it belonged to another.
