Chapter 14 Mens Rea revision Study Guide With Practical Exam Actual Answers.

Define mens rea - correct answer examines the state of mind of the defendant at the time of committing the offence. Distinguishes between an accident and a criminal offence. What will the absence of mens rea resulting in most cases? - correct answer an acquittal case example: R V Clarke (1972) case example-absence of mens rea acquittal-R V Clarke (1972) - correct answer Woman transferred items from her shopping bag into her own bag before paying for them. She was able to show that she suffered from absentmindedness due to depression so she lacked the mens rea and was acquitted. What are the exceptions to the lack of mens rea resulting in acquittal? - correct answer offences of strict liability-no proof of mens rea is required What is the highest level of mens rea? - correct answer intention/specific intention-direct or oblique What are the main types of mens rea? - correct answer recklessness, negligence and knowledge define intention: - correct answer in Mohan (1975) the courts defined intention as 'a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the accused's power (the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not'. Which cases could mens rea be classified as intention? - correct answer under section 18 of the offences against the Person act 1861 the defendant must cause GBH or wounding. The mens rea is that the defendant must intend to cause GBH or to resist arrest. If the defendant did not intend either he cannot be guilty of this offence. What is motive? - correct answer Mohan (1975) makes it clear that motive is not the same as intention and isn't relevant in deciding whether the defendant had intention. What is direct intent? - correct answer The defendant intends the specific consequence to occur. what is oblique/indirect intent? - correct answer The defendant intends one thing but the actual consequence which occurs is another thing. Case example: Hancock and Shankland (1986) Case example-oblique intent-Hancock and Shankland (1986): - correct answer The defendant intended to frighten someone so as to stop him going to work, but did not intend to kill or seriously harm the victim. The defendant wanted to stop the victims car so the defendant pushed a concrete block from a bridge onto the roadway - the driver of the car was hit by the concrete block and killed, this was not an intended result. What does section 8 of the criminal Justice act 1967 state? - correct answer Jury shall not be bound in law to infer that Defendant intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of it being a natural and probable consequence of those actions. The jury aren't obliged to say there was intention just because it was likely. but shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that results by reference to all the evidence drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances. The jury in a criminal trial must have clear direction as to how they should decide whether the defendant had necessary intention. Case example-oblique intent-Nedrick (1986)-established two-part test - correct answer The defendant had a grudge against a woman. He poured paraffin through the letterbox of her house and set it alight. A child died in the fire. The defendant only intended to scare the woman. The defendant was convicted of murder but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and substituted one of manslaughter. This established the two-part test to identify what oblique intention was. What is the foresight of consequences test? - correct answer A) consequence is a natural and probable consequence of D's actions. B) Defendant knows that it's a natural and probable consequence of his action. if both conditions are met the defendant is guilty established by Nedrick (1986) and Woolin (1998) case example-oblique intent-Woolin (1998)-confirmed two-part test - correct answer The defendant lost his temper with his three month old baby and threw the baby towards the pram. The baby hit the wall and died. The defendant intended to throw, not kill. The defendant was found not guilty as the defendant didn't foresee serious injury. The victim drowning was a natural and probable consequence of which the defendants would have been aware of. what is the difference between the foresight of consequences test and the Maloney guidelines? - correct answer The Maloney guidelines do not include the word "probable". case example-oblique intent-Matthew and Alleyne (2003) - correct answer The defendants knew that the victim couldn't swim but still threw him in the water. They could have forseen the outcome. They were guilty of murder. The defendants laughed at him and walked off as he called for help-this made it obvious he was likely to drown. The defendants' appreciation of death or serious harm did not constitute the necessary intentions for murder but intention can be inferred. case example-Maloney guidelines-Maloney (1985) - correct answer The defendant shot his stepfather which killed him. The pair had a good relationship (this was shown with evidence.) The defendant had consumed a lot of alcohol and so had his stepfather. The defendant said that he wanted to leave the army, the victim berated the defendant. They challenged each other with guns - the gun was accidentally aimed at the defendant's stepfather. The defendant was charged with murder but this was appealed to the Court of Appeal and then to the House of Lords and was lowered to manslaughter. Define subjective recklessness: - correct answer It is the level of mens rea lower than intention wearing the defendant knows that there is a risk of the consequence happening but goes ahead anyway. what the defendant thinks Define objective recklessness: - correct answer include situations in which the accused was wilfully blind to the consequences of his actions as he closed his mind to any contemplation of ramifications of his behaviour what others think/jury Case example-subjective recklessness-Cunningham (1957)-established test for recklessness: - correct answer The defendant broke a prepaid gas meter in order to steal the money inside. The result was the gas leaked into the next door house and the victim became very ill. Cunningham was charged with administering a noxious substance to the victim. held: recklessness is being reckless as to whether such harm should occur or not (that is the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it). It is neither limited to, nor does it indeed require, any ill will towards the person injured. Case example-subjective recklessness-R V G and another (2003)-established test for recklessness - correct answer To appellants went camping without their parents permission. The little newspaper and threw it into a wheelie bin. They left it without putting it out and assumed it would burn out naturally. It's set light to the wheelie bin and the fire spread to the cooperative shop causing over £1 million worth of damage. Held: these convictions were quashed. The House of Lords overruled MPC V Caldewell (1982) The House of Lords stated that the test for recklessness is a subjective test. What is the test for recklessness? - correct answer person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the criminal damage act 1971 with respect to- i) A circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist ii) A result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.