Principles of criminal liability: mens rea - CRIMINAL LAW (1)

Question 1

what is the literal translation for mens rea

Answer 1

guilty mind

Question 2

what must the mens rea be accompanied by to convict someone for a criminal offence

Answer 2

the actus reus

the actus reus alone is not enough for criminal liability. some mental element is also necessary.

MUST HAVE BOTH- ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

Question 3

what are the 4 types of mens rea

Answer 3

1) intention
2) recklessness
3) negligence
4) knowledge

Question 4

what is intention

Answer 4

it is the most blameworthy type of mens rea
The highest level of mens rea
used for the most serious offences

Question 5

what are the 2 types of intent

Answer 5

1) direct intent
2) oblique intent

Question 6

what is direct intent

Answer 6

this is where the defendant foresees the consequences of his actions and does everything in his power to bring about these consequences

Its the 100% aim and desire to bring about a certain consequence

Question 7

what is the case and principle for direct intent
(key case)

Answer 7

Mohan
legal principle= shows that the defendants motive or reason for doing the act is irrelevant,
it only matters if it was the D decided to bring about the prohibited consequences

Question 8

what is the other case and principle for intent

Answer 8

R v Steane
legal principle= shows that motive and intention are two separate issues

Question 9

what is oblique intention also known as

Answer 9

indirect intention

Question 10

what is oblique intention

Answer 10

sometimes a defendant will intend for one thing to happen, but the actual consequence will be another thing.

intends one thing but the actual consequence is another

end result is a virtually certain result

Question 11

what does the actual result have to be for oblique intention

Answer 11

result must be a virtually certain result and the defendant must be aware that the result is virtually certain.

Question 12

what is the virtually certain test

Answer 12

if the result of their actions was virtually certain to occur, and the person appreciated that it was so.

The defendant did not necessarily want the result to happen, but they knew it was very likely to occur as a consequence of their actions

Question 13

if a defendant has oblique intent its known as what

Answer 13

foresight of consequence

Question 14

what does the foresight of consequences mean

Answer 14

it means the defendant could foresee the result happening, which is enough to establish intent, even if it wasn’t their main goal.

Question 15

what is the case and principle for oblique intent

Answer 15

Wololin
legal principle= court said that if a person foresaw the consequence as virtually certain, they can be found to have intended it.

intention= stop baby crying
virtually certain result= baby died from being thrown against a wall

Question 16

what is recklessness

Answer 16

where the defendant knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk regardless

seeing the risk and takes the risk= MR

Question 17

what offences is recklessness used for normally

Answer 17

used for less serious offences where the D is not required to have intention (basic intent crimes)

Question 18

when is recklessness considered

Answer 18

look if there is intention first
considered when there is no intention from the D

Question 19

what is subjective recklessness

Answer 19

when the D knows there is a risk that their actions will cause a harmful outcome but disregards that risk.

Question 20

what is the subjective test

Answer 20

looks at what the defendant personally knew or believed, not what an average person would have known or believed.

Question 21

what is the main case and principle for recklessness

Answer 21

cunningham
legal principle= if the D did not know the risk (subjective recklessness) he will not be guilty.

The D did not know the risk and had no intention to cause harm so he wasn’t reckless (conviction quashed)

Question 22

what is the other case and principle for recklessness

Answer 22

G&R
legal principle= confirms the subjective test from the case cunningham

it went on appeal and the subjective test from cunningham was confirmed. The boys were not aware of the risk, so were not guilty

Question 23

what are the 2 other mens rea issues

Answer 23

transfered malice
coincidence of AR and MR

Question 24

what is transferred malice

Answer 24

the principle that the D can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim.

Question 25

what does malice mean

Answer 25

guilty intention

Question 26

what is the case and principle for transferred malice

Answer 26

Mitchell legal principle= defines transferred malice as the D will be guilty if the mens rea is transferred from the original victim to the actual victim of the crime It did not matter that the person who was harmed was not the person the D intended to harm. If the D has the mens rea of a crime and commits the actus reus , he will be liable

Question 27

what is the rule for transfered malice

Answer 27

it can be transferred from person to person and property to property but not vice versa person to property= malice cant be transferred

Question 28

what is the case and principle to show this

Answer 28

Pembliton legal principle= shows that malice directed at a person cannot be transferred to property the intention to hit someone could not be transferred to the window

Question 29

what is the coincidence of AR and MR

Answer 29

in order for an offence to take place, both the AR and MR must be present at the same time however it can be literally impossible for both to coincide at the exact same time during the crime courts have developed riles to allow this

Question 30

what are the 2 rules

Answer 30

series of acts continuing act

Question 31

what is the series of acts

Answer 31

sometimes been held that the actus reus is part of a series of acts or events

Question 32

what is the case and principle for series of acts

Answer 32

Thabo Meli v R legal principle= shows that if the D forms the necessary mens rea at some point during the course of the series of acts, he will be liable for the outcome of his actions D were guilty of murder. The required mens rea and actus reus were combined in a series of acts. 1) D beat the V over the head- MR 2) took his body to the cliff and threw him off- believed he was dead at this point so did not have the MR here but had the AR 3) D later died from exposure- AR but no MR

Question 33

what is the case and principle for continuing act

Answer 33

Fagan legal principle= shows that where there is a continuing act for actus reus, and at some point, while that act is still going on to the defendant has the necessary mens rea, when the 2 coincide, the D will be guilty. The AR in this case was a continuing act, so as long as the D developed the MR at some point while the act was continuing, the 2 elements were present together

Question 34

what is the A02 structure

Answer 34

- omission descibe - causation (but for factual cause) (minimal legal cause) (thin skull rule) - intervening acts mens rea - direct intention or oblique intention or recklessness any other issues - transferred malice - coincidence of the AR and MR