Mens Rea

Question 1

Intent

Answer 1

Wishing to bring about a consequence.

Question 2

Intent: R v Moloney

Answer 2

Foresight of the probability of a consequence does not amount to an intention to bring about that consequence, but may be evidence of it.

Question 3

Intent: R v Woollin

Answer 3

In murder cases where death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty from the defendants’ actions and they appreciated that to be the case, the jury may infer that the defendant intended to bring about such consequences (e.g. throwing baby on floor).

Question 4

Specific Intent

Answer 4

Intention is critical part of the offence (e.g. murder)

Question 5

Basic Intent

Answer 5

Requires less proof than specific intent, recklessness will often be enough.

Question 6

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 6

Cannot form specific intent, can form basic intent.

Question 7

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 7

Cannot form specific or basic intent.

Question 8

Intoxication: DPP v Majewski

Answer 8

Defendant can still form required mens rea for basic intent offence when drunk.

Question 9

Intoxication: R v Allen

Answer 9

Misjudging the strength of intoxicants is not involuntary intoxication.

Question 10

Intoxication: R v Kingston

Answer 10

Defendants’ in some case can be shown to form the required mens rea even when intoxicated as drunken intent is still intent.

Question 11

Intoxication: Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 11

Mistaken belief due to intoxication can be a defence (e.g. damaging another’s property, believing it was your own)

Question 12

Intoxication: R v Grady

Answer 12

Mistaken belief does is not a defence for murder, manslaughter or rape whilst intoxicated (e.g. murdering someone in the belief it was self-defence).

Question 13

Intoxication: Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

Answer 13

Using intoxicants to pluck up the Dutch courage to commit an offence rules out intoxication as a defence (e.g. doing a line on your way to murder someone)

Question 14

Recklessness

Answer 14

Unjustified risk taking.

Question 15

Recklessness: R v Cunningham

Answer 15

Subjective recklessness: the defendant foresees the consequences of their actions as being probable or even possible.

Question 16

Recklessness: R v G

Answer 16

Awareness: In the defendants’ mind were they aware of the risk (e.g. children were not aware that the small fire they started could spread).

Question 17

Reasonableness

Answer 17

Was it reasonable for the defendant to take the risk.

Question 18

Malice

Answer 18

Either actual intention to cause the relevant harm or at least foresight of the risk of causing some harm to a person.

Question 19

Wilfully

Answer 19

Intentionally or recklessly

Question 20

Dishonestly

Answer 20

State of mind

Question 21

Knowing: R v Dunne

Answer 21

A person who feels virtually certain about something can be regarded as knowing it.

Question 22

Belief

Answer 22

Different to knowing as a belief can turn out to be mistaken.

Question 23

Negligence

Answer 23

Acted in a way that runs contrary to the expectations of the reasonable person.

Question 24

Strict Liability

Answer 24

Offences where mens rea does not need to be proved, the act itself is sufficient.

Question 25

Strict Liability: DPP v H

Answer 25

Driving with excess alcohol does not require mens rea to be proved, it is strict liability.

Question 26

Transferred Mens Rea: R v Latimer

Answer 26

Mens rea for an offence can be transferred from one target to another (e.g. trying to hit one person with a belt, missing, and hitting a different person).

Question 27

Transferred Mens Rea: R v Pembliton

Answer 27

Mens rea cannot be transferred from one offence to another (e.g. a person throws a rock at a crowd intending to cause ABH, misses, and hits a window causing criminal damage).