Mens Rea (MR)

Question 1

subjective

Answer 1

what the D saw/perceived, exception is negligence

Question 2

objective

Answer 2

reasonable person test.

Question 3

types of MR

Answer 3

intention, recklessness, knowledge, belief, negligence, dishonesty.

Question 4

Moloney case

Answer 4

intention is distinct from motive or desire

Question 5

ulterior MR

Answer 5

conduct, circumstance, or result not required.

Question 6

normal liability

Answer 6

MR requirements with respect to each AR element

Question 7

strict liability

Answer 7

one or more AR element does not require MR

Question 8

absolute liability

Answer 8

no MR at all - conduct must be voluntary

Question 9

wilful blindness

Answer 9

will to be taken knowledge; someone has the foreseeability to see something is going to happen.

Question 10

knowledge

Answer 10

D has if he/she believes the case and is correct in that belief; subjective and objective

Question 11

belief

Answer 11

that a circumstance exists, no objective second requirement requiring the D to believe.

Question 12

dishonesty

Answer 12

• subjective - D’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts
• objective - given this, would ordinary decent people find D’s conduct dishonest?

Question 13

negligence

Answer 13

holding D to an objective standard of conduct, breaches of duty, gross negligence.

Question 14

types of intention

Answer 14

direct and oblique

Question 15

direct intention

Answer 15

person acts with the objective of bringing about a certain consequence

Question 16

oblique intention

Answer 16

doesn’t involve a person’s aim/purpose and doesn’t involve a desire to do the act, a person intends an AR requirement where the guilty act is certain to arise and D recognises this, jury finds.

Question 17

intention established (Case)

Answer 17

Woollin

Question 18

Hyam v DPP

Answer 18

flaming newspaper through letterbox, foresight of high probability, caused a house fire, intention was to scare but killed their children, held enough to be foresight of probability.

Question 19

r v Moloney

Answer 19

D shot stepfather, good terms, they were drinking and playing a game with the guns when shot the V, found guilty but HoL quashed conviction, incorrect direction to the jury couldn’t amount to intention.

Question 20

r v Hancock

Answer 20

miners hit a car with a concrete block aiming for the strikers to scare them, killed V, convicted for murder using Moloney, quashed as foresight of natural consequence could go far beyond something certain/virtually certain to happen.

Question 21

r v Nedrick

Answer 21

D put paraffin through letterbox, killed a child, convicted of murder, quashed this as the death/serious bodily harm had to be a certainty and the D had to appreciate it.

Question 22

r v woollin

Answer 22

D lost temper when baby was choking, shook and threw the baby across the room in anger, V died, accepted that in throwing the baby there was a serious risk of injury, HoL quashed murder conviction, manslaughter instead, trial judge misdirected by saying substantial risk.

Question 23

3 parts to the test

Answer 23

objective, subjective and jury

Question 24

objective part

Answer 24

the outcome/circumstance was virtually certain.

Question 25

subjective part

Answer 25

D had subjective foresight that the outcome/circumstacne was virtually certain, irrelevant what a reasonable person would do.

Question 26

jury part

Answer 26

entitled to find intention if the objective and subjective parts are satisfied, not obliged to find intention.

Question 27

recklessness

Answer 27

taking of an unjustified or unreasonable risk, foresee a risk of the consequences of your actions, less culpable form of MR than intention as it involves foresight of possible/probable consequences.

Question 28

recklessness perspective - subjectively

Answer 28

from the D’s own knowledge and foresight

Question 29

reckless perspectives - objectively

Answer 29

using the standards of reasonable awareness and conduct.

Question 30

r v Cunningham

Answer 30

D broke gas meter, cracked a gas pipe which leaked into house next door who inhaled it, D convicted of endangering life. CoA found it to be a misdirection, said maliciously meant recklessly, applied SUBJECTIVE - must have foreseen the harm that may occur but done it anyway.

Question 31

r v Stephenson

Answer 31

D lit a fire to stay warm, it spread and caused a lot of damage, charged with arson, defence was schizo, appeal was quashed and held misdirection as it had to be done subjectively from the point of the accused person - not objectively as to reasonable person test.

Question 32

r v caldwell

Answer 32

introduced objective recklessness, D started a fire in hotel room, tried for arson, argument was he was too drunk, appeal stated he should have known and the lack of thought dint relieve him of guilt, objective recklessness was no defence for those with a lack of maturity and intellect.

Question 33

r v Lawrence

Answer 33

risk must be serious, death by reckless driving, applied caldwell, risk to be obvious and serious.

Question 34

Elliot v c

Answer 34

child with learning difficulties burnt a shed down and caused damage to the property, reckless as to whether the property would be damaged, acquitted due to age and lack of understanding, Crown appealed, held that caldwell was objective and claimed it wasn’t reasonable, directed to conviction.

Question 35

r v g and another

Answer 35

overturned caldwell, 2 D’s set fire to some newspapers they threw under a bin, caused damage to the shop, charged, quashed convictions and overruled caldwell and went back to Stevenson.

Question 36

4 reasons for abolishing objective recklessness (r v g and another)

Answer 36

d needs actual mental state, only be liable is he knew about the intended risk, objective test is unfair, misinterpreted recklessness.

Question 37

test for recklessness (r v g and another)

Answer 37

subjective foresight of a risk (of a required result/circumstance), unreasonable taking of that risk.

Question 38

D must foresee the risk

Answer 38

r v Stephenson

Question 39

degree of risk is irrelevant - r v Brady

Answer 39

fell off a balcony drunk and squashed someone causing serious injuries to that person, argument was that foresight must be of an obvious and serious risk, rejected idea as any degree of foresight is allowed.

Question 40

how careful D considers the risk is irrelevant - r v Parker

Answer 40

D angry when using a public telephone and smashed the receiver damaging the phone, charged with criminal damage, recklessness was an issue, said he wasn’t aware of the risk but still should have appreciated it.

Question 41

constructive liability

Answer 41

AR elements without MR elements but building upon a base offence.

Question 42

ulterior MR

Answer 42

MR elements without AR elements within the offence.

Question 43

transferred malice

Answer 43

D’s MR can transfer from one V to another - R v Latimer.
- can only transfer within offences of the same type and cannot transfer twice.