Mens Rea - legal principle

Question 1

R v Mohan (1975)

Answer 1

Defined intent as M.R

Question 2

R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Answer 2

Consequence more likely means foreseeability more likely means intent more likely

Question 3

R v Moloney (1985)

Answer 3

HoL said foresight of consequences is evidence of intention, not intent itself

Question 4

R v Nedrick (1986)

Answer 4

Jury cannot infer intention unless sure that death or serious injury was ‘virtual certainty’ and that D knew that

Question 5

R v Woollin (1998)

Answer 5

Jury should be told they can ‘find’ intention but doesn’t have to

Question 6

R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Answer 6

Foresight is not intention. Jury can find intention but doesn’t have to

Question 7

R v Cunningham (1957)

Answer 7

Established definition of subjective recklessness

Question 8

R v Savage (1991)

Answer 8

Confirmed subjective recklessness applies to uses of ‘malicious’ in acts of Parliment

Question 9

R v Adomako (1994)

Answer 9

Example of negligence in criminal case

Question 10

Pharmaceutical society of great Britain v Storkwain ltd. (1986)

Answer 10

Strict liability offences (perscription)

Question 11

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

Answer 11

Strict liability offences (meat)

Question 12

Harrow LBC v Shah & Shah (1999)

Answer 12

Strict liability offences

Question 13

Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)

Answer 13

Strict liability offences (alcohol)

Question 14

R v Latimer (1886)

Answer 14

Transferred malice

Question 15

R v Gnango (2011)

Answer 15

Transferred malice

Question 16

R v Thabo Mei (1954)

Answer 16

M.R and A.R at same time

Question 17

R v Church (1965)

Answer 17

M.R and A.R at same time

Question 18

Fagan v Metropolitan police connoisseur (1986)

Answer 18

Continuing act