Week 2 - Mens Rea Flashcards
Key Mens Rea Features
- 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)
Criminal Libailtiy equation
Actus Reus + Mens Rea - Defence = Criminal liability
Actus non facet reum, nisi mens sit rea
An act does not make a person guilty of a crime unless the mind is legally blameworthy
Strict Liability
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
Ulterior Rea
a MR which does not correspond with an element of AR
Voluntary Act Requirement
For conduct element - presume conduct voluntary unless evidence it was not e.g., unconscious etc.
- cannto claim involuntry if self induced
Voluntary Act requirement - Cases
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
Mens rea terms
- identify which used within definition of offence
- intention
- knowledge
- belief
- recklessness
- dishonesty
- negligence
- previous blameworthy conduct
Intention
- most serious standard , greatest culpability and blameworthiness
1- Direct intention
2 - Oblique intention
3 - conditional intention
Direct intention
1- D acts with a purpose or aim towards it
2 - D intends a circumstance where she hopes it should be present
Direct Intention - Cases
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
Oblique intention
“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
Oblique Intention - Cases
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
Conditional Intention
- D intends an offence element where she decides to bring it about if a certain condition arises
Knowledge
- 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
Belief
- 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)
Recklessness
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
Recklessness Subjective - Cases
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
Recklessness objective - Cases
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
Dishonesty
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)
Negligence
- 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?
Previous blameworthy conduct
- 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
Previous blameworthy conduct - Case
Lipman - intoxicated and strangled partner during sex as though he was fighting snakes -> no MR present but due to prior fault -> conviction
Reform of MR
- codify? -settle vocab, settle definition, clear definition
- not purely subjective or objective
