Mens Rea

Question 1

Describe

Mens Rea in General

Apart of MR

Answer 1

Defined as Guilty Mind

Prosecution must prove D had both AR and MR for crimes that aren’t strict liability.

Question 2

Describe

Direct Intention

Mohan, Steane

Apart of MR

Answer 2

D forsees consequences of his actions, and with 100% aim and desire, does everything to bring about that consequence.

Mohan - D's motive or reason for act is irrelevant, only matters if D decided to bring about consequence.

Steane - Motive and Intention are two seperate issues

Question 3

Describe

Oblique Intention

Woolin - 2 part test

Apart of MR

Answer 3

D intends for one thing to happen, but consequence is something else, if D knew the action would virutally certain result in death, liable. Foresight of consequence.

Woolin - Virutal Certainty Test
1) Is death or serious injury, a virtually certain consequence of D's action.
2) Did D realise this and still go ahead regardless with action?

Question 4

Describe

Recklessness

Cunningham, G & R

Apart of MR

Answer 4

D knows there is a risk of consequence happening, but then takes risk regardless. Can be MR if there is no intention.

Cunningham - If D was subjectively reckless and did not know the risk, no guilt.

G & R - Confirms the subjective test in Cunningham.

Question 5

Describe

Transferred Malice

Mitchell, Pembilton

Apart of MR

Answer 5

D can be guilty if intended to commit a similar crime but against a different V.

Can be directed from person to person and property to property.

Mitchell - D will be guilty if mens rea is transferred from original victim to the actual victim

Pembilton - Malice directed at a person, can't transfer to property and vice versa.

Question 6

Describe

Coincidence of AR and MR

Thabo Meli v R, Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Apart of MR

Answer 6

For offence to take place, there must be an AR and MR present at same time, but if this is not the case, then the AR can be part of a series of acts or events.

Series of Acts

Thabo Meli v R - If D forms necessary MR at any point, in course of the serious act or event, they will be guilty.

(Essentially the MR is formed later as crime is ongoing)

Continuing Act

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - Where there is a continuing act for AR and during this time of the act, the D forms the necessary MR, the D will be guilty.

(Don't Add in Exam, to clarify for own self, when the D reversed his car on policemans foot, his AR started and was ongoing for the time his car was on the cops foot, he didn't have MR, but when he found out whilst his car was on the Cops foot, he formed the MR by not moving car, and as such the AR and MR coincided.

Question 7

Apply to an Exam Question

Flip

Apart of MR

Answer 7

Direct Intention

How do you know the D has decided to bring about the consequences of the death of the V? Refer to the facts of the case and what the D did.

What was the D’s foresight of consequences? What did the D have the 100% aim and desire to do?

Oblique Intention

What did the D intend to do? How is this different from what happened?

Was the actual outcome a virtual certain result of the D’s actions? Why?

Did the D know that the actual outcome was a virtual certain result? Why?

If all their actions suggest that the D had oblique intention for the death of the victim state that ‘oblique intention can be inferred’

Recklessness

How do you know the D didn’t have direct intention and instead took a risk of the outcome occurring?

Was the D aware of a risk of death? Why?

Explain how they took that risk. What did they do?

If all their actions suggest that the D was reckless in causing the death of the victim state that ‘the D was reckless in their course of conduct’

Other Mens Rea Issues

Transferred malice: If the D intended to commit a crime against one victim, but hurt another, explain who the intended victim was and who the actual victim was. Was it the same type of crime e.g., offence against a person? If so, the malice can transfer. If the crime was intended to be against a person but damaged property instead (or vice versa) the mens rea cannot transfer.

Co-incidence: Did the D’s actus reus and mens rea coincide at some point in time? If the actus reus happened later when the D was unaware? It may be the D didn’t have the mens rea at the time the actus reus happened. However, explain the actus reus will be considered as a continuing act and therefore as long as they coincide at some point in time, the D will be guilty.