Week 4 - Mens Rea Flashcards
What is a translation of Mens Rea?
“Guilty mind.”
What is the difference between subjective and objective MR?
Subjective - D’s actual state of mind, and personal awareness at the time eg. recklessness.
Objective - no particular state of mind, external standard of reasonableness eg. gross negligence.
What are the MR levels of culpability from high to low?
- Intention
- Recklessness
- Negligence
- Strict Liability
What is strict liability?
AR with no corresponding MR. eg. D selling defective products.
What is direct intention?
Mohan [1976] - “a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the accused power, [a particular consequence], no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not.”
What did Hales [2005] do?
Expanded the meaning of direct intention.
D stole motorcycle and was pursued by the police, got into police car and deliberately reversed over officer in order to escape. Police officer did not die but was seriously injured.
D admitted that he was prepared to kill in order to escape, thus having direct intention motive.
What did Lord Bingham state in Moloney [1985]?
“When directing the jury on … [intention] … the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent and leave it to the jury’s good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent.”
What is oblique intent?
R v Woollin: when a consequence is virtually certain.
What level of foresight is required for OI?
Hyam v DPP [1975]: D poured petrol through letterbox of B with newspaper and lit. B and son escaped but B’s 2 daughters killed.
HL upheld murder conviction, there was a high probability the consequence of D’s actions.
What did Moloney [1985] assert?
D drinking with step-father, had a competition as to who could load gun fastest, V dared D to shoot gun, D shot and killed v instantly.
‘Natural consequence.’
The probability of a consequence must be little short of overwhelming before it will suffice to establish intention.
What did Hancock and Shankland [1986] assert?
D’s threw concrete block from bridge on motorway to stop co-worker going to work in a taxi (miners strike), hit taxi driver and killed him.
“The greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen, and if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability that it was intended…”
What did R v Nedrick [1986] assert?
D poured paraffin through letterbox of X’s house and set it alight. Child died in the fire.
Lane CJ: “… the jury should be directed that they: are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that the death or serious bodily harm was a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY … as a result of the D’s actions and that D appreciated that was the case.”
What is the main authority for OI?
Woollin [1998]: D lost temper and threw 3 month old son against a hard surface. D claimed it was not his desire or purpose to kill his son or cause serious harm.
D convicted of murder and endorsed Nedrick ‘virtual certainty.’
How can recklessness be defined?
Unreasonable risk taking.
Cunningham [1957]?
D tore coin-operated gas meter way from a coal-gas pipe to steal money. Gas escaped and seeped through to adjoining house where H inhaled it.
D convicted - it does not matter what degree of risk D saw - providing D foresaw some degree of risk that will suffice.
