ELEMENTS OF OFFENCES - MR

Question 1

What does the phrase “An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty” signify regarding the relationship between actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR)?

Answer 1

This phrase signifies that both actus reus and mens rea must occur simultaneously for a person to be considered guilty, emphasizing the importance of both the action and the guilty mind in establishing criminal liability.

Question 2

Three main types of Mens Rea

Answer 2

intention, knowledge and recklessness

Question 3

MR can either be

Answer 3

expressed, implied or presumed.

Question 4

what is expressed mr

Answer 4

Expressed MR occurs when the law clearly states what the mens rea (guilty mind) is, making it easy to identify.

Question 5

what is implied mr

Answer 5

Implied MR refers to situations where the statute doesn’t explicitly mention intent, knowledge, or recklessness, but other words suggest that it is a mens rea offense. For example, in section 306 of the Crimes Act, the term “threaten” implies an intention to influence another person’s mind, indicating that intent is required.

Question 6

what is presumed mr

Answer 6

A presumed MR can be identified when the statute’s wording is neutral, yet the court is willing to infer mens rea as a matter of principle.

Question 7

what is a case example of presumed mr

Answer 7

R v Strawbridge

Question 8

R v Strawbridge

Answer 8

The court held that the severity of the sentence suggested that proving mens rea was necessary, as it was unlikely Parliament intended for someone to face such harsh punishment without establishing intent. Therefore, mens rea must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to prevent significant injustice.

Question 9

how is mr tested

Answer 9

SUBJECTIVELY, from the internal POV of the defendant, what did they intend

Question 10

how is intention defined in statute

Answer 10

it isn’t

Question 11

what is the ordinary meaning of intent

Answer 11

purpose, aim or objective
“intends to”, “means to”, or “willfully”

Question 12

what are the two types of intention

Answer 12

(1) Direct intention and (2) Oblique or indirect intention

Question 13

what is direct intention

Answer 13

Direct intention is when you act to achieve a specific outcome. For example, shooting someone with the intent to kill them.

Question 14

what is oblique intention

Answer 14

Oblique intention is when you have a specific goal but know that achieving it will likely cause harm.

Question 15

what is general example if oblique intention

Answer 15

Your acting to achieve x but horrible y may also happen

Question 16

what will the Judge do in regard to the jury with the two types of intention

Answer 16

judges will leave the jury to decide without explanation.

Question 17

what are the three English cases on intent any why are they important

Answer 17

r v woollen
r v nedrick
r v Moloney

important cases in the development of intention at common law.

Question 18

R v Moloney facts

Answer 18

Defendant shot his step father during an intoxicated exercise to determine who could load, draw and shot a gun faster.

Question 19

R v Moloney issues

Answer 19

Did the defendant intent to shot his father and therefore guilty of murder?

Question 20

R v Moloney held

Answer 20

No. The defendant is charged for manslaughter.
It was not considered oblique intention. The court held that “foresight of consequence” is a matter of evidence, meaning the jury must decide if intent can be inferred.

Question 21

what did lord bridge emphasise in R v Moloney

Answer 21

Lord Bridge emphasized two points: judges should avoid over-explaining intent to prevent jury confusion, and intent should not be confused with motive, as they are distinct concepts

Question 22

R v Nedrick facts

Answer 22

Nedrick set light to the house of a women whom he held a grudge and as a result of the fire one of the women’s children died.

Question 23

R v Nedrick issue

Answer 23

Did Nedrick kill with intention?

Question 24

R v Nedrick held

Answer 24

didnt kill w intention
Sets out the virtual certainty test
The court also confirmed the ruling in Moloney that foresight of consequences is a matter of evidence, not the definition of intent.

Question 25

what is the virtual certainty test in Hedrick

Answer 25

The virtual certainty test is applied in cases where the accused’s actions make the consequence nearly inevitable. It is mainly used when the accused's intention is clear from their admitted actions.

Question 26

R v Woolin facts

Answer 26

The defendant lost his temper and threw his three-month-old son on to a hard surface. His son fractured his skull and died.

Question 27

R v Woolin issues

Answer 27

Did Woolin intend to kill his son beyond reasonable doubt?

Question 28

R v Woolin held

Answer 28

No. Convicted for manslaughter. The court confirmed that foresight of consequences can be used as evidence for the jury to infer intent. The jury found that the appellant did not intend to kill or seriously harm his son.

Question 29

what are the 4 nz cases on intention

Answer 29

r v piri r v went worth NZP v K Taylor v R

Question 30

compared to English approach to intention nz

Answer 30

takes more robust and broad approach to intention

Question 31

R v Wentworth facts

Answer 31

The defendant, a pharmacist, was supplying drugs in excess to a customer who used them to make homemade heroin. The pharmacist was charged with assisting in the commission of a crime.

Question 32

R v Wentworth issue

Answer 32

What does "for the purposes" (of aiding someone) mean, and what is the required mens rea for a secondary party?

Question 33

R v Wentworth held

Answer 33

Appeal Unsuccessful - Wentworth guilty. - jury satisfied with foreseeability of virtual certainty so act was also intended -If a defendant knows their actions will have multiple consequences, they can't selectively ignore the known outcomes.

Question 34

New Zealand Police v K fatcs

Answer 34

Convicted of contravening a parenting order contrary to statute s 67, by not returning 4th child to mother on time

Question 35

New Zealand Police v K issue

Answer 35

The question is whether preventing compliance with a parenting order requires direct intent or if knowing it will likely happen (oblique intention) is sufficient.

Question 36

New Zealand Police v K held

Answer 36

Appeal allowed = defendant convicted. A defendant who knowingly causes a prohibited outcome is seen as intending that outcome, regardless of their motives. Motive does not matter.

Question 37

Taylor v R facts

Answer 37

Appellant attempted murder by stomping on victims head at least 20 times.

Question 38

Taylor v R issue

Answer 38

Defendant appeals on the basis of dissatisfaction.

Question 39

Taylor v R held

Answer 39

appeal dismissed = guilty of attempted murder intention to kill can be inferred only if the appellant knew the victim's death was virtually certain

Question 40

what did the judge in Taylor v r uphold

Answer 40

Moloney's golden rule to not give elaborate direction to jury in regard to intent because it overcomplicates it.

Question 41

r v piri facts

Answer 41

D's tie woman to tree, V dies of hypothermia.

Question 42

r v piri issue

Answer 42

was the virtual certainty test applicable in NZ?

Question 43

r u piri held

Answer 43

if there is a degree of virtual certainty you shall obtain that intention.

Question 44

how is knowledge identified in the crimes act

Answer 44

its not

Question 45

what is knowledge generally then

Answer 45

Knowledge requires actual certainty about something or, in some cases, a belief without significant doubt. It is a subjective assessment.

Question 46

what are the three types of knowledge

Answer 46

expressed, implied or presumed from legislation

Question 47

Doctrine of Willful Blindness

Answer 47

It is not a legal term, but rather a way to demonstrate knowledge and transition from mere suspicion to certainty.

Question 48

R v Crooks facts

Answer 48

Crooks received a sum of cash and drank alcohol provided by his flat mate "Bell". Crooks had reason to believe money and alcohol were stolen but turned a blind eye.

Question 49

R v Crooks issue

Answer 49

Did Crooks turn a blind eye because he had knowledge that the money and alcohol were stolen goods and he wanted to remain ignorant

Question 50

r v crooks held

Answer 50

Yes = Crooks convicted for having knowledge. - failure to enquire that is critical, if that failure is due to a fear of what might be true - ecision not to enquire was fatal to his case because evidence suggests he would have had a belief that the goods were stolen

Question 51

R v Martin facts

Answer 51

D convicted of importing 3+kgs of cocaine into NZ in ornamental statues.

Question 52

r v Martin issue

Answer 52

whether D knew the drugs were in her luggage.

Question 53

r v Martin held

Answer 53

To establish wilful blindness, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had suspicions but intentionally avoided further inquiry to remain ignorant

Question 54

how is reckless defined in statute

Answer 54

Not defined by statute

Question 55

how is recklessness generally known

Answer 55

conscious running of an unjustified risk

Question 56

how is every other aspect of recklessness other than risk assessed

Answer 56

very other aspect of recklessness is a subjective test

Question 57

Where the risk is stated in legislation to be "likely" or "probable" the COA had interpreted those words to mean

Answer 57

the risk must be 'real', 'substantial' or something that 'could well happen'.

Question 58

explain the tree of mr

Answer 58

1. direct intention or knowledge 2. oblique intent/belief 3. subjective recklessness 4. objective recklessness (risk) negligence (obg

Question 59

Recklessness applies to both type of crimes which are

Answer 59

conduct and result crimes

Question 60

R v G

Answer 60

Two boys started a fire in a backyard and let it spread to adjoining buildings, caused 1million pounds in damage

Question 61

R v G

Answer 61

Overturned the objective test - The 11 and 12 year old did not have reasonable foresight that the fire would spread to the extent it did.

Question 62

R v Harney facts

Answer 62

Defendant (18) killed another young man but stabbing him in the abdomen in a street brawl

Question 63

R v Harney issue

Answer 63

Appeal on the basis of misdirection of jury

Question 64

R v Harney held

Answer 64

Appeal dismissed = convicted of murder. Recklessness occurs when a person consciously disregards an obvious risk. In this case, the defendant knowingly chose to use a knife despite being warned about the serious danger.

Question 65

R v Tipple facts

Answer 65

The appellant supervised a shooting party near a busy road when a bullet hit two complainants' car just meters away. He argued the bullet must have ricocheted and claimed he was unaware this could happen.

Question 66

R v Tipple issue

Answer 66

Did Tipple have knowledge of the risk?

Question 67

R v Tipple held

Answer 67

jury held yes - Appeal dismissed. Because Tipple set up the target on the ground showed that he foresaw that there is a risk to people on the road if targets were positioned differently

Question 68

R v Hay FACTS

Answer 68

While standing in a petrol puddle, the defendant used an electric grinder that sparked, igniting the petrol and burning down the building. He claimed he angled the grinder away from the petrol to reduce the risk.

Question 69

R v Hay ISSUE

Answer 69

The case examines whether a defendant can be considered reckless if they acknowledge a risk and attempt to minimize it.

Question 70

R v Hay HELD

Answer 70

defendant was not reckless as subjectively the risk was gone to be negligent is not to be reckless

Question 71

Cameron v R facts

Answer 71

The defendant and others were found guilty of importing, selling, having possession for sale the class C drug MDA (valued at $36 million).

Question 72

Cameron v R issue

Answer 72

how the court should read MR into the offence and what MR should it be.

Question 73

Cameron v R held

Answer 73

They chose recklessness as the required mens rea to facilitate prosecution, as it is easier to prove than knowledge.

Question 74

D'Almeida v Auckland City Council facst

Answer 74

Defendant was speeding and charged with dangerous and reckless use of motor vehicle.

Question 75

D'Almeida v Auckland City Council issue

Answer 75

Appeal that the driving was not reckless.

Question 76

D'Almeida v Auckland City Council

Answer 76

Appeal allowed = Conviction for reckless driving set aside (conviction for dangerous driving remained). - defendants driving was dangerous, it was not reckless because the driver did not subjectively foresee the risk it herself.

Question 77

R v Jones facts

Answer 77

jones was towing a digger which protruded at a right angle colliding with an oncoming car and killing the driver. Charged will reckless use of motor vehicle.

Question 78

R v Jones issue

Answer 78

Was Jones aware that the arm of the boom (digger) had come out at a right angle?

Question 79

R v Jones held

Answer 79

Jury dismissed case. Proof that Jones had actual knowledge that arm had come out was not satisfied. Although dangerous driving does not require a subjective knowledge of risk, reckless driving does.

Question 80

heiehi v police facts

Answer 80

h shot down a drone

Question 81

heiehi v police held

Answer 81

The court ruled that he did not have a conscious appreciation of the risk at the time of firing the shots. realised after the fact that his actions were dangerous Consequently, the conviction was overturned, and a retrial was deemed unnecessary