State Of Mind Flashcards
For strict liability offences, do you still need to prove mens rea?
No not unless directed by parliament.
When considering offences that contain the offender ‘knowing’ something (handling or twoc), how would you describe knowing?
Being absolutely sure something is stolen or being virtually certain that it is.
What are the two types of recklessness?
Subjective - where a person foresees the risk if a consequence but goes on to take the risk anyway and given the circumstances it was unreasonable.
Objective - taking a risk and the risk would have been obvious to a hypothetical reasonable person in the same circumstances
Jamie and Jem break into western house school. They set light to some papers thinking they would just burn out. However after they set light, it takes hold and burns down the surrounding houses. Considering subjective recklessness, are they guilty of criminal damage?
No as they did not subjectively foresee the risk that was posed by leaving the fire to burn itself out.
Dave intends to harm mike and throws a punch. However mike ducks and Dave hits john causing a broken jaw. Can Dave be convicted of assault?
Yes - the intent formed towards the intended victim was transferred to the intended victim forming the men’s rea for the offence.
Richard throws a punch at Gary intending to cause harm. Gary however ducks and richard’s punch smashes a window. Guilty of criminal damage?
No as the actus refs do the offence committed against the victim differs from that which was directed towards the intended victim.
What do you need to prove in order to prove malice for GBH, Wounding or poisoning?
The intention to cause harm or the foresight of the risk of causing some harm.
Do you need to prove spite or reasons to prove malice?
No
I trip up Lucy expecting her to graze her knee. She however breaks her leg. Am I guilty of gbh?
Yes as I foresaw some harm (grazed knee). It does not matter that I did not foresee serious injury.
In relation to negligence. What must the prosecution show?
That their actions fell far below the standards that could be expected of a reasonable person.
James is with CRT. He knows that they carry knives and MAY use them. They get into a big fight and one person is stabbed and killed. James did not use the weapon, does know who did and there was no agreement to the murder beforehand. Is he guilty of joint enterprise?
Yes because he knows that knives are carried and that they may be used.
For negligence, does there have to be a blame element?
There has to be a blame element and the defendant’s compliance with the standards of reasonableness of ordinary people.
Negligence is generally concerned with the defendant’s compliance with the standards of reasonableness of ordinary people, not just the standards of ordinary people.
Unlike strict liability, negligence still ascribes some notion of ‘fault’ or ‘blame’ to the defendant, who must be shown to have acted in a way that runs contrary to the expectations of the reasonable person.
A dog dies and the RSPCA are considering an offence of animal cruelty.
In relation to the term ‘wilful’, what must the prosecution show in respect of GREENWOOD’s state of mind, in order to prove this offence?
That GREENWOOD was aware of the risk but took it anyway due to not caring whether the dog’s health was at risk or not.
It is taken to mean intentionally or recklessly (subjective) (“Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 2003)” [2005] QB 73). The requirements of subjective recklessness can be found in the case of R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 and are satisfied in situations where the defendant foresees the consequences of their action as being probable or even possible.
What is ulterior intent?
This goes being specific intent where you have the intent to do an act.
This is the initial intention to carry out the act plus a further intention to cause a consequence prohibited by the offence.
For example - burglary where you enter a building but also the intention to steal etc
An individual throws a rock at a window and it smashes. The person is thick and just thought it would bounce off. He therefore goes to court and says that he did not foresee that it would smash. Can we still prove intent?
Yes but it is not a given.
Just because a consequence is highly probable or virtually certain, it does not necessarily mean that a person intended the consequence to arise.
Evidence of the defendant’s foresight can be put before a court and a court may infer the presence of the defendant’s intention from it.
