mens rea of a crime

Question 1

mens rea

Answer 1

mental element of an offence
- each offence has its own mental element, except for offences of strict liability which can be committed with a voluntary actus reus alone

Question 2

briefly explain how there can be more than one mens era element in an offence such as S1 of Theft Act 1968

Answer 2

a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.

Question 3

give the 4 levels of intention (from highest to lowest) which need to be proved to satisfy the mens era of a crime

Answer 3

1) direct intention
2) indirect (oblique) intention
3) subjective recklessness
4) negligence

Question 4

direct intention

Answer 4

a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not (their intention is usually very clear)

Question 5

briefly explain R v Mohan (1975) to support the idea of direct intention

Answer 5

defendant refused to stop when policeman signalled and drove towards him.
therefore the intention to scare or injure him was there.

Question 6

indirect/oblique intention

Answer 6

the defendants main aim is not the prohibited consequence, however they realised that in achieving their aim they would cause those consequence.

Question 7

briefly explain R v Hancock & Shankland (1986) to show the idea of indirect/oblique and direct intention

Answer 7

defendant trying to stop victims car, so defendant pushes a concrete block from bridge onto road.
indirect: driver of car is hit by concrete and killed. Not the intended result.
direct: concrete hits road and forces car to stop.

Question 8

briefly explain the ‘foresight of consequences’ the court looks at for cases of indirect intention

Answer 8

first rule of this is it’s not the same as intention but can be evidence of intention, but only where the harm caused as a result of the defendants actions was a virtual certainty and the defendant realised this.

Question 9

what are the 2 ways a court or jury determines whether a person has committed an offence based on section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 on indirect intention?

Answer 9

• a court or jury shall not be bound in law to infer that intended or forsaw a result of his actions by reason only of it being a natural and probable consequence of those actions
• a court or jury shall decide wherther he intended or forsaw that result by reference to all the evidence in the corcumstances.

Question 10

briefly explain subjective recklesness and the 2 tests to prove it

Answer 10

a lower level of mens reas than intention.
It is the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk, and has to be proved that the D realised the risk but decided to take it anyway.

objective test: The prosecution must prove that a reasonable person would have been aware of the risk (through common sense)
subjective test: The prosecution must prove that the accused foresaw the risk. This test focuses on the defendant’s point of view

Question 11

briefly explain negligence and gross negligence as the lowest level of mens rea in criminal cases

Answer 11

involves behaviour that falls below the standard of a reasonable person.
gross negligence: D’s negligence must be so extreme it amounts to a criminal act 9e.g. manslaughter)