CLASS 4 – WEEK 5 – MENS REA
INTENTION
1) Q) D wanted to kill his neighbour V, but he knew his gun was old and not very
accurate. One day he saw V at his bedroom window and, although D knew
that he was too far away to have much chance of hitting V, he decided to take
a shot anyway. As luck would have it, the shot hit V, killing him at once.
…Is D liable for murder?
A) I would argue he is liable for murder because the mens rea is in there; he
intended to kill V even if his gun was old or the chance of hitting V was low.
The actus reus is also clearly there. ‘But-for’ D didn’t shoot V, V would not
have died. However he may be charged with manslaughter, though I stand
with charging him with murder.
B) No one can know anything for certain but beyond reasonable doubt some
knowledge; a reasonable degree of certainty.
C) In an essay, discuss if D is liable for murder BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT before anything else. Murder is down to (Actus Reus): the death of
another person, because of the act/omission of another person, causation in the
end. Mens rea in murder is down to the INTENTION to kill, OR GRIEVOUS
BODILY HARM. The third thing to consider is the absence of defences.
a. Actus Reus discussion: D shot V, causing V’s death. Factual causation
= V factually died due to the actions of D. Legal causation =
b. Mens Rea discussion: D KNEW the gun was old and he was far away
from V.
c. YOU HAVE TO AIM FOR A RESULT. DOESN’T MATTER IF
YOU KNEW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
d. FORESIGHT is not the same as knowing your act cannot happen, D
knew there was a CHANCE to kill V.
e. ILAC approach: Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion.
2) Q) Doctor D is tried for murder. He admits that he has knowingly given lethal
injections of painkilling drugs to five elderly patients over a number of years.
There is no dispute that all were suffering severe pain from incurable terminal
illnesses and that the doses of drugs administered were no more than were
necessary to relieve their pain. Bereaved family members give evidence of
their confidence in D. D claims he is not guilty of murder because he did not
intend to kill his patients only to relieve them of their suffering.
Imagine you are a member of the trial jury, and that you have been correctly
directed by the judge following the House of Lords ruling in WOOLLIN [1998] 3
WLR 382 (baby dying from fractured skull case). Will you find the doctor guilty
or not guilty?
A) I would not find the doctor guilty. Actus reus is absent as well as Mens rea. If
anything, he can’t be charged with murder as he definitely did not intend to
kill any of the people, so manslaughter is a possible charge.
"Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction
is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the
necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm
INTENTION
1) Q) D wanted to kill his neighbour V, but he knew his gun was old and not very
accurate. One day he saw V at his bedroom window and, although D knew
that he was too far away to have much chance of hitting V, he decided to take
a shot anyway. As luck would have it, the shot hit V, killing him at once.
…Is D liable for murder?
A) I would argue he is liable for murder because the mens rea is in there; he
intended to kill V even if his gun was old or the chance of hitting V was low.
The actus reus is also clearly there. ‘But-for’ D didn’t shoot V, V would not
have died. However he may be charged with manslaughter, though I stand
with charging him with murder.
B) No one can know anything for certain but beyond reasonable doubt some
knowledge; a reasonable degree of certainty.
C) In an essay, discuss if D is liable for murder BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT before anything else. Murder is down to (Actus Reus): the death of
another person, because of the act/omission of another person, causation in the
end. Mens rea in murder is down to the INTENTION to kill, OR GRIEVOUS
BODILY HARM. The third thing to consider is the absence of defences.
a. Actus Reus discussion: D shot V, causing V’s death. Factual causation
= V factually died due to the actions of D. Legal causation =
b. Mens Rea discussion: D KNEW the gun was old and he was far away
from V.
c. YOU HAVE TO AIM FOR A RESULT. DOESN’T MATTER IF
YOU KNEW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
d. FORESIGHT is not the same as knowing your act cannot happen, D
knew there was a CHANCE to kill V.
e. ILAC approach: Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion.
2) Q) Doctor D is tried for murder. He admits that he has knowingly given lethal
injections of painkilling drugs to five elderly patients over a number of years.
There is no dispute that all were suffering severe pain from incurable terminal
illnesses and that the doses of drugs administered were no more than were
necessary to relieve their pain. Bereaved family members give evidence of
their confidence in D. D claims he is not guilty of murder because he did not
intend to kill his patients only to relieve them of their suffering.
Imagine you are a member of the trial jury, and that you have been correctly
directed by the judge following the House of Lords ruling in WOOLLIN [1998] 3
WLR 382 (baby dying from fractured skull case). Will you find the doctor guilty
or not guilty?
A) I would not find the doctor guilty. Actus reus is absent as well as Mens rea. If
anything, he can’t be charged with murder as he definitely did not intend to
kill any of the people, so manslaughter is a possible charge.
"Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction
is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the
necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm
