MR Flashcards
Intention and subjective recklessness
The highest level of fault is intention, which is split into direct intent, oblique intent and subjective recklessness.
Direct intent
Test: where it was the defendant’s aim and purpose to bring about the prohibited consequence (the AR)
Oblique intent
Two elements:
1) Where it is not the defendant’s aim or purpose to bring about the prohibited consequence (the AR)
2) But he forsees that the result is virtually certain to occur because of his actions
Subjective recklessness
The defendant appreciates the risk of the prohibited consequence (AR), but continues anyway
Specific intent and basic intent
Specific intent crimes ate those that have intention as their MR (direct/oblique).
Basic intent crimes are those where the MR can also be satisfied by subjective recklessness.
Specific intent crimes
Murder
Wounding/GBH with intent - s18
Theft and robbery
Basic intent crimes
Common assault - s47
Manslaughter
Wounding/GBH - s20
Negligence
Failure to meet the standards of a reasonable person.
Rarely sufficient for the MR in criminal, but there are exceptions e.g. gross negligence MS
Transferred malice
Men’s rea can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim where the defendant misses their intended target so the domino rally effect occurs.
Men’s rea can only be transferred where the AR remains the same.
Strict liability
Offences where the prosecution is not required to prove the MR in respect of one or more elements of the AR. They exist to regulate society and protect the vulnerable.
As these offences are contrary to the normal rules of criminal law, judges treat with caution. They limit the application in such cases.
Contemporaneous rule
‘At the same time’ - general rule in English law where the AR and MR must occur at the same time.
However, there’s been flexibility with this in the interests of justice, such as continuing acts (AR and MR coincided at some point)
R v Mohan
The D directly intended to cause harm by dangerously driving.
R v Woollin
The oblique intention exists if there is ‘an appreciation of a substantial risk of injury’. The D was liable of murder as death/GBH was foreseeable.
R v Matthews and Alleyne
Although deliberately acting with an appreciation of the virtual certainty of death didn’t automatically imply intent to kill, it could be considered evident of oblique intent
R v Cunningham
The D was aware of the risks of his reckless actions
R v Adomako
Where the death is a result of the D’s grossly negligent act or omission
R v Latimer
The mens rea the D had to cause harm to the intended V transferred to the actual V, and he was held liable for the injuries inflicted on V.
R v Mitchell
There was no requirement that the unlawful act be directed at the actual V
R v Gnango
It was still possible for a person to be a party to a crime even if he was the intended victim, the D was guilty.
R v Pembliton
Transferred malice can not transfer the malice intended to harm a person to the act of damaging property.
PSGB v Storkwain Ltd
Strict liability was imposed as the supply of medicines must be carefully regulated
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent
Drunken and anti-social behaviour must be deterred, especially as MR might not be able to be formed when drunk
Callow v Tillstone
It mattered not how diligent the butcher had been to ensure the safety of the meat, after he was convicted of selling unfit meat.
Harrow LBC v Shah
Gambling is a matter of social concern
R v Prince
Protection of children is a matter of social concern.
Aphacell Ltd v Woodward
Lord Salmon: ‘if this appeal succeeded and it were held to be the law that no conviction could be obtained unless proving that the pollution was caused intentionally or negligently, a great deal of pollution would go unpunished’.
R v Blake
Radio bands are used by emergency series so any unauthorised use must be prevented.
Sweet v Parsley
Lord Diplock: ‘when interpreting any criminal offence provision, language implying a mental element must be considered, even if it’s not explicit, the absence of a genuine belief, held honestly and reasonably, the facts making the act innocent exist’
Gammon Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong
The presumption of MR may be rebutted where: the crime is one of social control, the wording of the Act indicated strict liability, or the offence carries a heavy penalty
Fagan v MPC
Driving onto the foot and staying threw was part of a continuing act
Thabo-Meli v R
The act of beating him and throwing him off a cliff was one continuing act
R v Church
The judge directed the jury to consider the ‘whole course of conduct of the accused as one’
