MR - General elements Flashcards
What concept is liability built on?
The concept of fault - a person shouldn’t be liable for a criminal offence unless he is to some extent blameworthy, or at fault
What does the mens reas of a criminal offence examine?
the state of mind the defendant at the time of committing of the offence.
What are the three elements of the mens rea?
intention
recklessness
transferred malice
What is meant by direct intent?
Where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs
What case shows direct intent and what happened in the case?
R v Mohan - mohan was driving his car when he was stopped by a police officer but he didn’t slow down enough and the officer ended up on his bonnet and Mohan sped up and tried to knock the officer off. The officer feel off at a high speed and went under the wheel and died, mohan was guilty of murder because his intention was to kill/seriously harm the officer
What is meant by indirect intent?
The D intends one thing but the actual consequence which occurs is another thing
What case illustrates indirect intention and what happened in this case?
R v Woollin - Woollin was annoyed by his young child chocking and threw the baby into the pram in which he missed and the baby fell to its death - Woollin was still liable for murder even though he didn’t intend it, but it was virtually certain to occur
What case confirmed the decision in R v Woollin?
R v Mathews and Alleyne
What is meant by recklessness in terms of mens rea?
Some crimes require the lower level of mens rea of recklessness. In criminal law - the type used in that of subjective recklessness. This is where the person takes an unjustified risk of which he was actually aware
What case illustrates recklessness in terms of the mens rea?
Cunningham
What is meant by transferred malice?
Where the mens era of a crime is directed at one person and transferred to the unintended victim. This only applies if both crimes are the same
When can malice not be transferred?
From an object to a person and vice versa
What three cases illustrate transferred malice?
Mitchell 1983
Latimer 1886
Pembiliton
What is the contemporaneity rule?
Actus reus and mens rea must occur at the same time, on the same person in the same place.
What cause illustrates the rules surrounding a ‘continuing act’ and what are the case facts?
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - D accidentally stopped his car on a policeman’s foot. When the policeman asked him to move his car, he replied ‘fuck off you can wait’ Court found D guilty of causing injury to the policeman. Leaving the car on his foot was seen as a continuous act even though when he stopped the car initially he didn’t have the mens rea but formed it when he refused to move the car
What happened in the case of Thabo Meli?
D hit V over the head, intending to kill him. Believing V was edad and trying to make it look like an accident, D threw V off a cliff, which he then died from exposure several days later
What is meant by strict liability?
Strict liability crimes are those where only an actus reus is needed - mens rea has no relevance and doesn’t need to be proven. Performing the act is sufficient for D to be guilty.
What type of offence is strict liability seen as?
Mostly seen as regulatory offences and are not always seen as ‘crimes’ by the public
What case illustrates strict liability and what are the case facts?
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd - D had supplied drugs on perscriptions, but the perscriptions were later found to be forged. There was no finding that D has acted dishonestly, improperly or even negligently. The forgery was sufficient to decieve pharmacists. But the pharamcists still supplied the drugs without a genuine prescription and this was enough to make them guilty of s.58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968
What happened in the case of Callow v Tillstone?
A butcher was convicted of selling meat unfit for human consumption even though it had been certified by a vet - this was a strict liability offence, it didn’t matter how diligent he had been
What happened in the case if Harrow London Borough Council v Shah?
Staff sold a lottery ticket to an under 18, and they had been told to check ID’s and ask a manger if they were unsure - the manager was still guilty as a ticket had been sold illegally
How do we know if an offence is one of strict liability?
There is a general ‘presumption of mens rea’ for criminal offences. Where statutes say ‘knowingly’ or ‘recklessly’ these are not offences of strict liability - because there is an indication of some form of mens rea. If an Act of Parliament makes it clear that MR is not required, the offence will be one of strict liability
What happened in the case of Sweet v Parsley 1970?
D rented out a farmhouse to a student and they used cannabis in the house which was found by the D - D didn’t know what was going on but was charged with allowing the smoking of cannabis but was acquitted as it was states than an element of mens rea was needed for there to be a conviction - the statute doesn’t specifically exclude mens rea and the offence was not one of SL
What is the key case for setting out the criteria for deciding whether an offence is one of mens rea and what is the criteria?
Gammon v AG for Hong Kong -
1)Offences which are regulatory and not a ‘true crime’ are likely to be seen as SL offences: B v DPP
2) If the crime is one of ‘social concern’ or ‘public safety’ and so the presumption of MR is rebutted and it’s an offence of SL
3)if the wording of the act indicates it is one of SL (theres an express provision excluding any MR of an offence)
4) if the offence encourages greater vigilance and so SL is appropriate
