Mens Rea and Actus Reus

Question 1

What are the 4 parts of Mens Rea

Answer 1

-Intention
-Knowledge
-Recklessness
-Negligence

Question 2

Sweet v Parsley

and Lord Reids Principle

Answer 2

Sweet was a landlady for a group of students smoking cannabis, she allegedly didn’t know about this, Sergeant Parsley discovered the smoking and had all the students arrested, there Actus Reus as her behaviour “being in charge of the home,” to circumstances, “people smoking drugs in a property.” This statue doesn’t utilise any word which applies Mens Rea and so she was charged,

When appealed to the House of Lords, Lord Reid, stated that; our first duty is to consider the words of the act; if they show a clear intention to create an absolute offence, that is the end of the matter
In a large number of case there is no clear indication either way.

“In such as cases there has been a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of person who were in no way blameworthy for what they did.”

Question 3

The Gammon Principle

Answer 3

The presumption applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statue

The presumption is particularly strong when the offence is ‘truly criminal,’

The only situation in which the presumption of Mens Rea can be displaced is where the statue is concerned with an issue of social concern, and public safety is an issue, stigmatic crimes

Even where SL is indicated in statute, it will only be enforced if proven it shows a clear directness to the completion of the objectives of the statue

orginates from Gammon v Attorney-General of Hong Kong (1985)

Question 4

R v Woolin

Specifically Lord Steyns Commentary

Answer 4

If the case proves exceptional and a definition for “intention,” must be given to the jury,
The jury should be instructed that they are not entitled to find necessary intention, unless the death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainly, as a result of the defendants actions.

Normally “Intention” should not be defined to a jury, but rather leaving it up to there common sense

Question 5

Cunningham

Answer 5

D goes into a cellar and rip a gas meter from the wall, to steal the coins inside, causing gas to leak into the neighbours house, killing him

In any statutory definition of a crime ‘malice’ must be taken not in the old vauge sense of wickedness, but rather in terms of recklessness
he correct test for malice was;
(1) whether the defendant had either actual intent to cause harm

(2) or was reckless as to the possibility of causing foreseeable harm.

This is known as Cunninghams Recklessness

Question 6

Caldwell

Answer 6

Caldwell, a hotel employee, whist heavily inebriated sets a fire in the hotel he works in, under the criminal damage act he had to be proven as reckless,

Lord Diplock, created another definition of reckless here,

(1) He does an act which creates an obvious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged and;

(2) when he does such as act, he either has not given any thought to such a possibility, or there being an such risk. Or has recognized that there was a risk and went along with it.

This however was later overruled as a new standard.

Removed by R v G (2003)