Week 2 - Mens Rea

Question 1

Key Mens Rea Features

Answer 1

• not in statute but common law
• Subjective v Objective MR
• presumption in favour of MR (if act sets out AR but no MR it is assumed it’s required)

Question 2

Criminal Libailtiy equation

Answer 2

Actus Reus + Mens Rea - Defence = Criminal liability

Question 2

Actus non facet reum, nisi mens sit rea

Answer 2

An act does not make a person guilty of a crime unless the mind is legally blameworthy

Question 2

Strict Liability

Answer 2

Actus reus with no Mens rea
1 - strict or absolute offences - limited punishment as no act required
2 - strict liability elements - require MR for some AR elements but not all, if MR doesnt apply then liability is strict

Question 3

Ulterior Rea

Answer 3

a MR which does not correspond with an element of AR

Question 4

Voluntary Act Requirement

Answer 4

For conduct element - presume conduct voluntary unless evidence it was not e.g., unconscious etc.
- cannto claim involuntry if self induced

Question 5

Voluntary Act requirement - Cases

Answer 5

Larcener (1933) 24 Cr App r 74
- D ordered to depart from UK and traveled to Irish free state - arrested and brought back against her will which went against Aliens Order -> guilty as offence does not require Ds presence to be voluntary

Question 6

Mens rea terms

Answer 6

• identify which used within definition of offence
• intention
• knowledge
• belief
• recklessness
• dishonesty
• negligence
• previous blameworthy conduct

Question 7

Intention

Answer 7

• most serious standard , greatest culpability and blameworthiness
  1- Direct intention
  2 - Oblique intention
  3 - conditional intention

Question 8

Direct intention

Answer 8

1- D acts with a purpose or aim towards it
2 - D intends a circumstance where she hopes it should be present

Question 9

Direct Intention - Cases

Answer 9

Moloney [1985]- D killed stepfather when drunk in content -> foreseeing harm is not enough for intention
Hiam [1975] -petrol through letter box led to fire and 2 killed -> intention of death but not motive, intention includes means as well as ends
Hales [2005] - D ran over police in attempt to escape -> intention to kill though not motive

Question 10

Oblique intention

Answer 10

“Woollen test”
1 – The offence element must be in virtual certainty - Objective external world not Ds mind
2 – D must foresee the offence element as virtually certain -subjective and looks into the mind of D.
3 – the jury may find intention

Question 11

Oblique Intention - Cases

Answer 11

Woollen [1999] - D killed his child by throwing him against a hard surface, D didn’t desire to kill the child, D charged with murder with MR of intention to kill or GBH
- crown court - judge stated jury could say intention if D realised his actions posed “substantial risk”
HoL - substantial risk not app, oblique intention requires result to be virtually certain, foreseen by D, and jury find intention -> manslaughter conviction
Gillick v West Norfolk - doctor prescribed pill to underage girl, AR of encouraging underage sex -> even though first 2 step of OI apple the jury stated not as acting in patients medical interest

Question 12

Conditional Intention

Answer 12

• D intends an offence element where she decides to bring it about if a certain condition arises

Question 13

Knowledge

Answer 13

• equivalent to intention in terms of culpability
  1 - D believed that it is the case (subjective)
  2 - D is correct in that belief (objective)
• willfull blindness - D foresees the possibility of certain circumstances and could easily discover the truth and chooses not to

Question 14

Belief

Answer 14

• not as culpable as intention or knowledge
• D has belief that a circumstance exists or that a result will be caused and foresees it as highly likely (doesnt need to be correct)

Question 15

Recklessness

Answer 15

1 - D foreseen the risk of the AR (subjective)
2 - unreasonable to continue to run the risk (objective)
- no degree of risk - if it is seen it is sufficient
- dont need to attach weight to risk to foresee it

Question 16

Recklessness Subjective - Cases

Answer 16

Stephenson [1979] - D with SZ sheltered in a haystack and lit fire which spread -> medical evidence proved D not aware of risk due to SZ
Brady [2006] - D drunk in nightclub and climbed on railing which fell on V -> charged with offence due to recklessness as foresight of risk is sufficient
Parker [1977] - D lost temper and smashed public telephone -> charged criminal damage as though awareness of risk suppressed by anger, still must’ve entered his mind

Question 17

Recklessness objective - Cases

Answer 17

Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 - D tore gas meter form wall to steal money and escaped into neighbours house -> conviction quashed as D did not foresee the risk
G[2003] UKHL 50 - D set fire to newspapers under bin which spread to buildings ->HoL claimed could not foresee the damage

Question 18

Dishonesty

Answer 18

1- What was the actual state of Ds knowledge or belief as to the facts (subjective)
2 - was Ds conduct dishonesty by the standards of ordinary decent people (objective)

Question 19

Negligence

Answer 19

• a certain type of behaviour from D which drops below the standards we expect from reasonable people
  1 - What was Ds duty of care? - increased with specialised knowledge
  2 - Did D breach duty of care?

Question 20

Previous blameworthy conduct

Answer 20

• if offence requires MR and MR is absent = no liability
  in some cases court can ask fi Ds lack fo MR was due to own ‘prioir fault’ e.g., Voluntary Intoxication

Question 21

Previous blameworthy conduct - Case

Answer 21

Lipman - intoxicated and strangled partner during sex as though he was fighting snakes -> no MR present but due to prior fault -> conviction

Question 22

Reform of MR

Answer 22

• codify? -settle vocab, settle definition, clear definition
• not purely subjective or objective