Mens Rea - Intention and Recklessness

Question 1

Mens Rea for Murder

Answer 1

Malice aforethought.

An intention to kill (express malice) or an intention to cause GBH (implied malice)

Question 2

R v Vickers [1957]

Answer 2

An intention to cause GBH (implied malice)

Question 3

DPP v Smith (1960)

Answer 3

GBH is “really serious harm”.

Question 4

R v Saunders (1985)

Answer 4

GBH just means “serious harm”.

Question 5

What are the 2 types of intention?

Answer 5

Direct intent and Oblique intent

Question 6

R v Maloney (1985)

Direct Intent

Answer 6

• Intention is to be given its ordinary everyday meaning
• It is the purpose or objective of his act.
• Subjective test

Question 7

R v Woollin (1999)

Oblique Intent

Answer 7

1. was death or serious harm (or other required outcome) a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY?

AND

1. 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.

Question 8

R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Answer 8

Intention to kill is proved if the jury are satisfied that the defendant had appreciated that there was a virtual certainty of death.

Question 9

Chandler v DPP (1964)

Answer 9

• 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.

Question 10

R v G and another [2003]

Recklessness

Answer 10

1. did the accused foresee the risk of the outcome OR likelihood of such a risk arising ( Subjective)

AND

1. 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

Question 11

Transferred Malice

Answer 11

Doctrine allowing the mens rea to transfer from the intended harm to the actual harm.

Question 12

R v Latimer (1886)

Answer 12

If you intend to harm one person, and in doing so, harm another, the intention to harm is transferred to the actual harm.

Question 13

R v Pembliton (1874)

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Answer 14

Defendant must have the relevant mens rea for the offence at the precise moment when he commits the actus reus.

Question 15

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)

(Continuing Act Theory)

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Thabo Meli (1954)

One Transaction Principle

Answer 16

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

Question 17

R v Church (1966)

(One Transaction Principle)

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

R v Masilela (1968)

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

AG’s Ref (No 4 of 1980) [1981]

Answer 19

If there are multiple causes which could have caused death, it is unnecessary to prove which act caused the death.

Question 20

R v Bailey (1800)

Answer 20

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Convicted of an offence created by a statute enacted whilst he was at sea. Irrelevant.

Question 21

R v Smith (1974)

Answer 21

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.