- Fault element
R v Moloney  Jury Q q/o detailed guidance from judge.
R v Woollin  Indirect intention. Death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.
Adomako  " Whether the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all circumstances as to amount in their judgement to a criminal act or ommission.
Cunningham (subjective) recklessness- D acts recklessly if:
->He believes his conduct will give rise to a risk of harm;
->and it is unreasonable for D to run the risk that he foresees.
Dishonesty Thefts Act 1968
R v Ghosh  (i) would ordinary ppl consider it dishonest; if so (ii)Did D realise that they would find it dishonest?
Criticism of Mens Rea
-> Not consistent in applying objective or subjectice test for liability. There is an absence of underlying rationale & the offences develope independently of each other. ->Sir Henry Brooke (Former Head of Law com) Suggests codification of some parts of crim law
R v Pembleton  does not operate where the crime which occured was differentfrom what was intended. [otherwise it works see Latimer ]
Circumventing Concurrence of AR & MR
-> Creating fresh AR at later time that coincides with D's MR. ->
Prosecutro might try Continuing act
Fagan V Metropolitan Police Commisioner 
Or seeing if they can be prodectured via ommision
As in Miller 
Or as a single complex transaction