Principles of criminal liability: mens rea - CRIMINAL LAW (1) Flashcards
what is the literal translation for mens rea
guilty mind
what must the mens rea be accompanied by to convict someone for a criminal offence
the actus reus
the actus reus alone is not enough for criminal liability. some mental element is also necessary.
MUST HAVE BOTH- ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA
what are the 4 types of mens rea
1) intention
2) recklessness
3) negligence
4) knowledge
what is intention
it is the most blameworthy type of mens rea
The highest level of mens rea
used for the most serious offences
what are the 2 types of intent
1) direct intent
2) oblique intent
what is direct intent
this is where the defendant foresees the consequences of his actions and does everything in his power to bring about these consequences
Its the 100% aim and desire to bring about a certain consequence
what is the case and principle for direct intent
(key case)
Mohan
legal principle= shows that the defendants motive or reason for doing the act is irrelevant,
it only matters if it was the D decided to bring about the prohibited consequences
what is the other case and principle for intent
R v Steane
legal principle= shows that motive and intention are two separate issues
what is oblique intention also known as
indirect intention
what is oblique intention
sometimes a defendant will intend for one thing to happen, but the actual consequence will be another thing.
intends one thing but the actual consequence is another
what does the actual result have to be for oblique intention
result must be a virtually certain result and the defendant must be aware that the result is virtually certain.
what is the virtually certain test
if the result of their actions was virtually certain to occur, and the person appreciated that it was so.
The defendant did not necessarily want the result to happen, but they knew it was very likely to occur as a consequence of their actions
if a defendant has oblique intent its known as what
foresight of consequence
what does the foresight of consequences mean
it means the defendant could foresee the result happening, which is enough to establish intent, even if it wasn’t their main goal.
what is the case and principle for oblique intent
Wololin
legal principle= court said that if a person foresaw the consequence as virtually certain, they can be found to have intended it.
intention= stop baby crying
virtually certain result= baby died from being thrown against a wall
what is recklessness
where the defendant knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk regardless
seeing the risk and takes the risk= MR
what offences is recklessness used for normally
used for less serious offences where the D is not required to have intention (basic intent crimes)
when is recklessness considered
look if there is intention first
considered when there is no intention from the D
what is subjective recklessness
when the D knows there is a risk that their actions will cause a harmful outcome but disregards that risk.
what is the subjective test
looks at what the defendant personally knew or believed, not what an average person would have known or believed.
what is the main case and principle for recklessness
cunningham
legal principle= if the D did not know the risk (subjective recklessness) he will not be guilty.
The D did not know the risk and had no intention to cause harm so he wasn’t reckless (conviction quashed)
what is the other case and principle for recklessness
G&R
legal principle= confirms the subjective test from the case cunningham
it went on appeal and the subjective test from cunningham was confirmed. The boys were not aware of the risk, so were not guilty
what are the 2 other mens rea issues
transfered malice
coincidence of AR and MR
what is transferred malice
the principle that the D can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim.
what does malice mean
guilty intention
what is the case and principle for transferred malice
Mitchell
legal principle= defines transferred malice as the D will be guilty if the mens rea is transferred from the original victim to the actual victim of the crime
It did not matter that the person who was harmed was not the person the D intended to harm. If the D has the mens rea of a crime and commits the actus reus , he will be liable
what is the rule for transfered malice
it can be transferred from person to person and property to property but not vice versa
person to property= malice cant be transferred
what is the case and principle to show this
Pembliton
legal principle= shows that malice directed at a person cannot be transferred to property
the intention to hit someone could not be transferred to the window
what is the coincidence of AR and MR
in order for an offence to take place, both the AR and MR must be present at the same time
however it can be literally impossible for both to coincide at the exact same time during the crime
courts have developed riles to allow this
what are the 2 rules
series of acts
continuing act
what is the series of acts
sometimes been held that the actus reus is part of a series of acts or events
what is the case and principle for series of acts
Thabo Meli v R
legal principle= shows that if the D forms the necessary mens rea at some point during the course of the series of acts, he will be liable for the outcome of his actions
D were guilty of murder. The required mens rea and actus reus were combined in a series of acts.
1) D beat the V over the head- MR
2) took his body to the cliff and threw him off- believed he was dead at this point so did not have the MR here but had the AR
3) D later died from exposure- AR but no MR
what is the case and principle for continuing act
Fagan
legal principle= shows that where there is a continuing act for actus reus, and at some point, while that act is still going on to the defendant has the necessary mens rea, when the 2 coincide, the D will be guilty.
The AR in this case was a continuing act, so as long as the D developed the MR at some point while the act was continuing, the 2 elements were present together
what is the A02 structure
- omission descibe
- causation (but for factual cause) (minimal legal cause) (thin skull rule)
- intervening acts
mens rea
- direct intention or oblique intention or recklessness
any other issues
- transferred malice
- coincidence of the AR and MR
