Mens Rea Flashcards
(41 cards)
What is Mens rea?
The guilty mind, it is the mental element of criminal liability based on intent and not motive or reason
What is the exception for establishing mens rea?
Strict liability crimes as mens rea doesn’t need to be proven
What are the types of mens rea?
- Direct intent
- Oblique intent
- Subjective recklessness
- Negligence
- Transferred malice
- General malice
What was held in R v Mohan?
The conviction of sexual assault was overturned on appeal and it was established that specific intent is:
“The decision to bring about the prohibited consequence, whether it was desired or not”
What is direct intent?
The defendant intended the specific consequence to occur
What is oblique intent?
The defendant did not intend the desired outcome
How can oblique intent happen?
Missing the target
A domino effect
What is ‘foresight of consequences’?
The consequence must be virtually certain and the defendant could foresee the result
What is the starting point for foresight of consequences?
S.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
What was held in R v Moloney?
Conviction of murder was substituted for manslaughter and was held that foresight of consequences is only evidence of intent and not actually intent
What did Lord Bridge ask the jurors to ask themselves in R v Moloney?
- Was the consequence a natural consequence of the defendant’s act?
- Did the defendant foresee the consequence as a natural result of the act?
What was held in R v Hancock and Shankland?
Convictions of murder were quashed by the House of Lords and Moloney was overruled as there is no reference to probability
What was held in R v Nedrick?
The court of appeal asks the jury to ask themselves:
- How probable were the consequences?
- Did the defendant foresee the consequences?
What was held in R v Woollin?
Murder conviction was substituted to manslaughter as the trail judge’s use of “substantial risk” expanded the mens rea of murder.
- The House of Lords agreed with Nedrick, but added clarity in that it must be “virtually certain” and the defendant must appreciate this
What are the issues with Woollin?
- The change from the word ‘infer’ to ‘find’ doesn’t change anything, and complicates things more as ‘infer’ is seen in S.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
- Lord Steyn said that a “foreseen result, as vital certainty, is a foreseen result”
What was held in R v Matthews and Alleyne?
Convictions were upheld and it was seen that R v Woollin is a rule of evidence
What was held in R v Re A?
Doctors were able to lawfully operate on conjoined twins despite it being virtually certain that the weaker one will die
What are three issues on the law of intention?
- In R v Re A, it was seen that foresight of consequences is intention, whereas in R v Matthews and Alleyne it is seen as a rule of evidence
- Intention is not defined in statute
- In R v Moloney and R v Hancock and Shankland, jurors needed to be directed on intention, though this was sorted in Nedrick
What was the law commissions role in the definition of intention?
They defined it in a Draft Criminal Code 1989 Clause B.
Professor Sir John Smith criticised it as being ‘aware’ could be confused with recklessness or negligence, and a person could be held to intend a result they did not intend.
- Law Commission made a new report in 1993, though it was never implemented
What is subjective recklessness?
Defendant knows there is a risk of consequences happening but decides to take the risk anyway
What was held in R v Cunningham?
The defendant was not guilty as he had not intended to cause the harm, nor had realised the risk
What was held in R v Savage?
Malicious is doing something intentional or with subjective recklessness about the risks involved
What crimes are sufficient for recklessness?
- Assault and battery
- Assault occasioning ABH (S.47 OAPA 1861)
- Malicious wounding (S.20 OAPA 1861)
What was previously objective recklessness?
An ordinary person would’ve realised the risk, a defendant is guilty even if they didn’t know the risk
