Mens Rea Flashcards
(10 cards)
What is Mens Rea?
A “guilty mind”
It looks at D’s state of mind at the time of committing the offence.
What is intent?
The highest form of MR, in some offences like murder, only intention suffices as MR, so if D did not intend death or GBH, they are not liable for murder.
What is direct intent?
Where result is D’s aim or purpose.
Defined in Mohan (1975) as a “decision to bring about a prohibited consequence” where D driven car into police officer with aim of injuring him.
What is indirect intent?
Where result isn’t D’s aim but they realise it is “virtually certain” to occur as a result of their actions
E.g. Woollin (1998), D threw baby son across room, said tried to throw in pram but had not intended to kill, jury found that a) death was virtually certain and b) D appreciated it was
What is recklessness?
Lower level of MR to intention, it must be proven that D was aware of risk of the consequence, but deliberately goes ahead with act.
This is subjective, what was on D’s mind, if he didn’t see risk, he can’t be reckless.
E.g. Cunningham (1957) D tore gas meter from wall to steal money, gas escaped to adjoining property, poisoning neighbour, D did not realise the risk
What is negligence?
Where D fails to meet standard of the reasonable person, this is objective as D does not to realise this.
E.g. Adomako (1994), an anaesthetist liable for gross negligence manslaughter when took several minutes to realise breathing tube had disconnected during operation, reasonable anaesthetist would have noticed within seconds.
What is strict liability?
Offences that don’t require a MR to be proved in relation to at least one element of AR, they are exceptions to general rule that AR and MR is needed.
Mainly used in road traffic offences or breaches of healthy and safety, usually only a fine, described as “no fault offences”
E.g. Callow v Tillstone (1900) butcher convicted of selling contaminated meat even though certified as fit for human consumption by vet, took reasonable care but still guilty
What offences are strict liability?
Usually AOP makes it clear if MR is needed, if it makes it clear MR is not needed, it is strict liability e.g. driving without license, if neither c judges presume MR required.
E.g. Sweet v Parsley (1971) D rented farmhouse to students who used it to smoke cannabis. Court said MR was reauired.
Presumption of MR strong if carries custodial sentence
In absence of clear words excluding Mr, decided if matter of social concern or public safety
What is transferred malice?
D can be guilty if they intent to commit crime against A but actually commits same offence against B
E.g. Gnango (2011) passerby shot in gang shootout D had participated him, person who fired shot never caught but would have been guilty of murder by TM, D had participated in attempt of murder of himself so guilty of murder under joint enterprise
Can MR be transferred if crime is different to one intended
No, as shown by Pembliton (1874), D thee stone at V, but hit window instead, MR cannot be transferred from crime against person to fine against property
