MR: Intent, Recklessness, negligence, knowledge and belief, intoxication, coincidence of AR and MR

Question 1

Define MR

Answer 1

• The ‘guilty mind’.
• Requirement may vary from offence to offence
• May comprise one or more of intention, knowledge, rashness, negligence or strict liability

Question 2

Intention - definition

Answer 2

‘Direct’ intention = aim or purpose. What you are trying to do. D attempts to bring about the outcome – he needs or wants to, which is why he acts the way that he does

Question 3

Intention - Oblique (Indirect)

Answer 3

D recognized that the actus reus was a virtually certain consequence of his actions. Foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of intention, but not necessarily intention itself (R v Moloney).

Question 4

Intention - Test for Oblique Intent

Answer 4

Following R v Nedrick and supported by Woollin, the jury should consider:

1. Did the defendant have foresight that death or serious injury would be “virtually certain” to result from his voluntary act?.
2. If yes, does the jury, in light of all the evidence, decide it is appropriate to find intent?

Question 5

Intention - Murder

Answer 5

The mens rea for murder consists of an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) (R v Moloney). Implied malice (intention to cause serious injury) is sufficient mens rea for murder (Cunningham).

Question 6

Recklessness - Subjective

Answer 6

Established in Cunningham as the conscious taking of an unreasonable risk. This includes closing one’s mind to an obvious risk (Parker). The accused has foreseen the particular harm and has gone on to take the risk of it (Cunningham).

Question 7

Recklessness - Objective

Answer 7

Defined in Caldwell as where D fails to think about a serious and obvious risk of harm. This test was abolished in R v G, which reaffirmed subjective recklessness.

Question 8

Negligence - Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Answer 8

Requires a breach of a duty of care that involves a risk of death, causes death, and is so gross as to be considered criminal (Adomako). The circumstances must be such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk not merely of injury, even serious injury, but of death (Misra)

Question 9

Knowledge and Belief: Intoxication - Voluntary

Answer 9

“A drunken intent is still an intent” - Sheehan
(SPECIFIC INTENT)

Question 10

Intoxication - Basic Intent Offences

Answer 10

For crimes where recklessness is sufficient mens rea, voluntary intoxication does not provide a defence (Majewski). A voluntarily intoxicated defendant will be deemed reckless if they would have foreseen the risk had they been sober (Majewski). Examples include manslaughter, assault, and battery (Majewski).

Question 11

Intoxication - Specific Intent Offences

Answer 11

For crimes requiring intention as the mens rea (e.g., murder, theft), voluntary intoxication may negate the necessary intent (Beard, Lipman).

Question 12

Intoxication - Dangerous vs. Non-Dangerous Drugs

Answer 12

For non-dangerous drugs (e.g., Valium - Hardie), the prosecution must prove the defendant had actual foresight of the tendencies of the drug to negate mens rea. For dangerous drugs or where such foresight exists for non-dangerous drugs, voluntariness and mens rea are deemed present.

Question 13

Intoxication - Mistake in Defences

Answer 13

If a defence (e.g., self-defence) rests on a mistake that arose from voluntary intoxication, the defence will likely fail, even for specific intent offences (O’Grady). However, for the “without lawful excuse” defence in Criminal Damage Act 1971, s. 5(3), an honestly held belief is immaterial, even if due to intoxication (Jaggard v Dickinson).

Question 14

Coincidence of AR and MR: Continuing act

Answer 14

Where the actus reus is considered to continue over time and the mens rea is formed at some point during its continuation (Fagan).

Question 15

Coincidence of AR and MR: General rule

Answer 15

• The AR and MR generally must coincide in time (Fowler v Padget), with some exceptions

Question 16

Coincidence of AR and MR: Omission following act with MR

Answer 16

Where an initial act without mens rea creates a dangerous situation and a subsequent omission with mens rea leads to the harm (Miller).

Question 17

Coincidence of AR and MR: Single transaction doctrine

Answer 17

Where a series of acts are planned to achieve a single outcome, the mens rea formed at the beginning can be considered to apply to the later acts, even if the mens rea is absent when the fatal act occurs (Thabo Meli v R).