Criminal Law: Mens Rea Flashcards
Mohan
direct intention
D drove his car straight at a police officer in order to injure them
D had direct intention to bring about the prohibited consequence
Woollin
indirect intention
D threw baby towards a pram but the baby died when it hit the wall
ruled that D would have indirect intention if they foresaw the consequence as virtually certain and appreciated that it was a virtual certainty
Cunningham
recklessness
D pulled a gas meter off the wall to steal coins and the gas leaked, poisoning the neighbour
D did not realise this could occur and did not foresee this risk so was not reckless
Adomako
negligence
anaesthetist failed to notice a breathing tube had come disconnected during an operation
D was negligent as a reasonable anaesthetist would’ve realised this
Callow v Tillstone
strict liability
butcher sold meat unfit for human consumption, a vet assured him that it was acceptable to sell
D was still guilty even though there was no fault on his part, the MR did not need to be proved as it was a SL offence
Harrow v Shah
strict liability
staff member sold a lottery ticket to a 13 year old who looked much older, the owners had told the staff not to sell tickets to anyone underage
however, the owners were still liable as the offence was regulatory and one of strict liability
Cundy v Le Cocq
strict liability
D was charged with selling alcohol to a drunk person
it did not matter that D did not know the person was drunk, there is no defence of due diligence or even honest mistake
Gammon
strict liability
in which a builder deviated from plans
set out the basic principles of SL
• there is a presumption of MR in criminal offences
• presumption is particularly strong if the offence is “truly criminal”
• this is only displaced if the statute clearly excludes MR, it is a matter of public safety and if it will encourage businesses to be more vigilant
Sweet v Parsley
strict liability
a woman was originally found guilty of allowing her house to be used for the smoking of cannabis, she had rented it to students and did not know cannabis was being smoked there
an offence involving drugs would be regarded as truly criminal so the offence was not strict liability
Latimer
transferred malice
D removed his belt in an argument and tried to hit one person but struck the other instead
D was still guilty even though he had not intended to hit V, MR was transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim
Pembliton
transferred malice
D threw a stone at a group of men but missed and smashed the window
MR cannot be transferred from a crime against a person to a crime against property so D was not liable for the damage
Fagan
continuing act
D drove on to a police officer’s foot by mistake and therefore had the AR of battery. when D realised what he had done, he refused to move the car and formed the MR
AR was treated as a continuing act so it does not matter than MR was formed while the AR was still continuing
Thabo Meli
series of connected acts
D intended to kill V and therefore had the MR of murder. however, V was still alive at this point so D had not performed the AR. believing V to be dead, D pushed the body over a cliff to dispose of it and V died some hours later due to exposure
the second act was the cause of death but was not accompanied by MR so the court treated the acts as a series of connected acts and D was convicted of murder
