Mens Rea

Question 1

What is mens rea?

Answer 1

The guilty mind

Question 2

What is the difference between mens rea and motive?

Answer 2

Motive refers to the reason the defendant committed the criminal act usually over a longer period of time while mens rea is what they were thinking in the moment if doing the criminal act.

Question 3

What are the 4 levels of MR

Answer 3

Direct intent
Indirect intent
Recklessness
Negligence-only relevant for a few types of crime

Question 4

Define direct intent

Answer 4

Direct intentions is a decision to bring about, so far as is possible, a criminal consequence.
The criminal consequence is the D’s main aim, objective and purpose.

Question 5

What case did the definition of direct intent come from?

Answer 5

Mohan(1976)

Question 6

Summarise the facts of Mohan (1976)

Answer 6

D responded to a police officer’s signal to stop
Slowed down but then accelerated towards PC
PC moved out way
D drove off
D charged with attempt to cause bodily harm by wanton (deliberate and unprovoked) driving at a police constable.

Question 7

Define indirect intent

Answer 7

When the D had another aim entirely, but the criminal consequence was a virtual certainty of his actions and the defendant knew it.

Question 8

What cases can be used to demonstrate indirect intent?

Answer 8

Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
Woollin (1998)

Question 9

Summarise the facts of Matthews and Alleyne (2003).

Answer 9

Ds threw V into a deep river after robbing him.
Fully aware the V could not swim.
Ds found guilty of murder
The death or serious injury to the V was considered a “virtually certain” result of their actions and they knew it to be so

Question 10

Summarise the facts Woollin (1998)

Answer 10

D feeding his young baby
Baby began crying and D, frustrated, threw baby towards the pram.
Baby hit wall and died
D found guilty of murder
The death or serious injury to the baby was considered a “virtually certain” result of his actions and he knew it to be so.

Question 11

Define recklessness

Answer 11

Where there is a risk of the criminal consequence and the D knows it but carries on with the act anyway

Question 12

What case can be used to demonstrate recklessness?

Answer 12

Cunningham (1957)

Question 13

Summarise the facts of Cunningham (1957)

Answer 13

D tore gas meter from wall and stole money
Did not turn off gas
Gas escaped partially asphyxiated his prospective (future) mother-in-law who was asleep on her bedroom
D charged with having unlawfully and maliciously caused V to take a noxious thing.

Question 14

What two questions should you answer to find out if someone was reckless and what should the answer be?

Answer 14

Was there some risk of criminal consequence?
Did the D know it?
Both should be answered yes

Question 15

Apply the two recklessness questions to Cunningham (1957) .

Answer 15

Was there some risk of the criminal consequence? Yes
Did the D know it? No, so the case was quashed and he was not liable

Question 16

How can someone be negligent and how is it different in civil vs criminal law?

Answer 16

If they have not reached the standard of the reasonable man in the circumstances.
This is enough for liability under civil law but not generally under criminal law.

Question 17

What are the two exceptions to the general rule for the standard of the reasonable man not being enough under criminal law for liability?

Answer 17

1. Some statutory offences, e.g. s.3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 under which negligent driving is enough for criminal liability.
2. Gross negligence manslaughter (and even then its gross negligence not just negligence)

Question 18

What is transferred malice?

Answer 18

Where the mens rea of the crime directed at one person is transferred to the unintended victim of the crime

Question 19

What three cases are used to demonstrate transferred malice?

Answer 19

R v Latimer (1886)
R v Pembilton (1874)
R v Mitchell (1983)

Question 20

Summarise the facts of Latimer (1886)

Answer 20

D a soldier during an argument with another man, C ,in a pub, took off his belt and swung at C.
He missed and wounded the landlady V.

Question 21

Summarise the principle of Latimer (1886)

Answer 21

Intention to strike C was transferred to V under the doctrine of transferred malice.
Doctrine applied damage intended and which occurred was of the same type (injury to a person)
The D was guilty

Question 22

What is the rule for something being transferred under the doctrine of transferred malice?

Answer 22

Has to be from person to person or property to property.
Not a mix of both

Question 23

Summarise the facts of Pembilton (1874)

Answer 23

D broke pub window with stone when he was trying to throw at a group of men he had been fighting, missed them and broke the window instead.

Question 24

Summarise the principle of Pembilton (1874)

Answer 24

D not guilty
“Malice” could not be transferred because the damage intended (injury to a person) and the damage which occurred (damage to property) were of different types.

Question 25

Summarise the facts of Mitchell (1983)

Answer 25

D and another man S became involved in a scuffle in a Post Office; D pushed S, who fell onto an elderly lady V, causing V injuries from which she later died.

Question 26

Summarise the principle of Mitchell (1983)

Answer 26

Guilt of manslaughter
Intention to strike S was transferred to V under the doctrine of transferred malice
Applied because the damage intended and the damage which occurred are of the same type (injury to the person)

Question 27

What is the legal principle of transferred malice?

Answer 27

Only applicable when the actus Reus intended is the same as the actual actus Reus inflicted on the unintended victim.
Where the actus Reus is different from the intended actus Reus, no malice can be transferred.

Question 28

Generally speaking, what must the actus Reus and the mens rea do for there to be criminal liability?

Answer 28

Must coincide (they must occur at the same time)

Question 29

What is the principle/rule called when actus Reus and mens rea must coincide?

Answer 29

“Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea” or the contemporaneity rule

Question 30

Why have the courts modified the contmeporaneity rule?

Answer 30

To make sure a series of linked acts or omissions can be treated as a single continuing act.

Question 31

What is the first exception for the contemporaneity rule?

Answer 31

Where the actus Reus appears to occur before the mens rea

Question 32

What case do we use for “where the actus Reus appears to occur before the mens rea”?

Answer 32

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)

Question 33

Summarise the facts of the case Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)

Answer 33

D accidentally stopped his car on a policeman’s foot.
When the policeman asked him to move the car, he replied “f*ck off, you can wait.”

Question 34

In Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) what did the D argue?

Answer 34

Actus Reus and mens rea did not coincide and there was no contemporaneity rule.

Question 35

In Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969), what argument did the court use to find the D guilty?

Answer 35

That the whole episode was a “single continuing act”
That is that the actus Reus began when he ran over the foot and continued for the whole time the car was on his foot.
Therefore, actus Reus and mens rea did coincide.

Question 36

What is the second exception for the contemporaneity rule?

Answer 36

Where the mens rea appears to occur before the actus Reus.

Question 37

What cases can be used to demonstrate “where the mens rea seems to appear before the actus Reus.”?

Answer 37

Thabo Meli (1954)
Church (1966)

Question 38

Summarise the facts of Thabo Meli (1954)

Answer 38

D hit victim over head intending to kill him
Believing V was dead and trying to make it look like an accident he threw him over cliff
V later died of exposure

Question 39

Summarise the facts of Church (1966)

Answer 39

D(male) and V (female) had gone to his for s*xual purposes where she mocked his incompetence
In anger he knocked her out.
He mistakenly thought she was dead and threw her unconscious body in the river
She drowned
He was charged with manslaughter

Question 40

What did the D in Thabo Meli (1954) and Church (1966) argue?

Answer 40

There was no coincidence rule.

Question 41

What did the courts argue to find Thabo Meli (1954) and Church (1966) D’s guilty?

Answer 41

That the whole episode was part of a “single transaction”; as the mens rea was present at some point during the transaction, then there was contemporaneity.

Question 42

What is an objective test?

Answer 42

From the perspective of the reasonable man

Question 43

What is a subjective test?

Answer 43

From the perspective of the D

Question 44

What test do we use for recklessness now? Subjective or objective?

Answer 44

Subjective

Question 45

What are the two questions we need to ask to determine whether something is indirect intent?

Answer 45

Was the criminal consequence virtually certain?
Did the D know this?

Question 46

If the answer to these two
questions is ‘yes’ what is this proof or evidence of intention?
The jury ask themselves ‘were the consequences a natural and probate consequence of the D’s actions.
And whether the defendant foresaw the consequence as a natural consequence of their actions.

Answer 46

Evidence of intention

Question 47

What is evidence of intention?

Answer 47

Where there jury can say there is indirect intention but they do not have to

Question 48

If the answer to the two indirect questions, regarding virtual certainty is ‘yes’ then is this proof or evidence of intention?

Answer 48

Proof of intention

Question 49

What is proof of intention?

Answer 49

Where of the answer to both questions is ‘yes’ then the jury has to conclude there is indirect intention.

Question 50

What are the jury not consistent with regarding indirect intention?

Answer 50

Proof of intention