Transcript Mens Rea

Mens Rea- 3
Criminal A2
Mrs Howe
Mens Rea
Mens Rea is the mental element of an offence.
All offences must have an actus reus and a mens
rea unless it is an offence of strict liability.
There are different levels of Mens Rea required for
different offences
To be guilty D must have the minimum level of
intention.
Specific intention- highest level
Recklessness
Negligence
Intention
In Mohan 1975 intention was defined as
“a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies
within the accused power( the prohibited
consequence), no matter whether the
accused desired that consequence of his
act or not”.
This makes it clear that the motive or reason
for doing something is not relevant.
Most intend to cause consequence.
Direct and oblique intent
In most cases the D has what is known as direct
intent.
But can be situations where the D intends one
thing and the actual consequence which occurs
is something else
e.g Hankcock and Shankland 1986
The D intended to frighten someone to stop him
going to work (miners strike) actual
consequence driver taking man to work was
killed
D wants to stop V’s car, so
pushes a concrete block from
a bridge onto the roadway
Direct Intent
Concrete hits road
and forces car to
stop
Oblique Intent
Driver of car is hit
by concrete and
killed. Not the
intended result
Foresight of Consequences
• Main problem is proving intention.
• Especially where D intended something
else.
• If can show that in achieving intended
thing D foresaw that he would also cause
those consequences then could be found
G
Recklessness
• Subjective Test- what was in the D mind
• R V Cunningham 1957
• Objective what would be in an ordinary
persons mind
• MPC v Caldwell 1982
Gross Negligence
• Lack of Concern to the possibility of obvious
injury
• Foresight of the risk but a resolve to still run that
risk
• Foresight of the risk coupled with a weak
attempt to avoid it that still amounts to high
degree of negligent behaviour
• Inattention to an important matter that relates to
the defendants duty of care.
• All left for jury to decide
R V Adomako 1994
Transferred Malice
D can be guilty if he intended to commit a
similar offence but against a different V.
e.g. aim to hit person A but hit person B still
have Actus reus and Mens rea so offence
committed
Where the mens rea is for a different type of
offence then the D may not be guilty.
Pembliton 1874 Fight, stone, pub window,
NG MR assault AR criminal damage
Coincidence of Actus Reus and
Mens Rea
Actus Reus and Mens Rea must be present at the
same time for an offence to have been
committed.
e.g. If you intend to go round and assault your
neighbour but when you get there you change
your mind no offence is committed even though
you had the mens rea.
If however an hour later you reverse your car and
knock your neighbour over, whilst you have the
Actus reus for assault you would not have the
mens rea to be G of an offence. Thabo Meli V R
1954
Mens rea- Mental ElementIntention, Desire, Motive
Direct Intention
Oblique Intention
D achieves
desired result.
Something else
happened as a
result of act.
What did the D
want to happen
Reason for
doing actnot
relevant for
Mens Rea
If can show
Foresight of
consequence can
be G
Direct Intention
Test
How probable was the
consequence which resulted from
D voluntary act
Did D foresee that consequence
Direct Intention
Mens Rea mental act
D Intention
Direct Intention
Oblique Intention
Intend one thing get another
Motive N/a
Foresight of
consequences
Occur at same time or
during Actus Reus
Recklessness
Lower level
Mens Rea
Lack of concern
Gross Negligence
Foresight and still took risk
Objective Test – what was
in ordinary persons mind
Subjective Test – what was
in D mind
Foresight and weak attempt to
avoid it
Inattention to duty
Transferred Malice
Intention for one person can be
transferred to someone else
Continuing Act
• Where there is a continuing act for the
Actus Reus and at some time while that
act is on going the D has the required
Mens rea then the two do coincide and D
will be guilty
• Has the required Mens Rea and Actus
Reus for offence to be committed
Hancock and Shankland 1986
• Two D’s attempting to intimidate a fellow
worker during a strike threw a concrete
block from a bridge onto the victims
passing car, killing the victim. The court
focused on the probability of the
consequence when using it as evidence to
decide intent
Nedrick 1986
• The D poured petrol through the letterbox of a
house to frighten a woman who was living there.
The result was the death of a child. From this
particular case two questions emerged, which it
was hoped would help clarify the intent:• Was the result a virtual certainty of the action
• Did the D realise that the result would be a
virtual certainty of the action.
Unless the jury was happy that the answer to both
questions was yes they could not assume the D
intention
Woollin 1998
• D threw his three month old baby at his
pram. The baby missed the pram and
crashed into the wall, dying of his injuries.
The courts were not happy with the two
questions used in Nedrick case but still
warned the jury to find intention but only if
they thought the result was a virtual
certainty from the actions of the D and that
they knew this to be the case.
Mathews and Alleyne 2003
• The D’s dropped the victim 25 feet from a
bridge, into the middle of deep river. The
victim had told them that he could not
swim. They watched him dog paddle
towards the bank but left before seeing if
he reached the bank. V drowned
• Foresight of consequence is not intention
Maloney 1985
• D shot and killed his step father in a game
that went tragically wrong. Both were
drunk and trying to decide who had the
fastest draw. It was decided by the court
that foresight of consequence was only
evidence that could be used to decide
intent, it did not prove intent
Task
Create a timeline to show the cases which
have developed the Law on Mens Rea
Add brief details to show the points of law
each case made
Task
Create a table to show the main cases with
regard to Mens Rea Case law
Quality Criteria
List all the relevant cases,
brief facts of each case and
the law the case created/defined
Task
Highlight the main differences between
subjective and objective recklessness
using the subjective and objective test
Use three of your own examples to illustrate
your answer.
What are the problems with using such
tests.
Questions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Describe mens rea
What is the relationship between mens rea and actus reus?
What are specific intent, direct intent and oblique intent?
What is subjective and objective recklessness?
How do the cases of R v Cunningham 1957 and MPC V Caldwell
1982 illustrate subjective and objective recklessness?
Give three examples of gross negligence
Who decides whether an offence constitutes gross negligence?
What is transferred malice?
What does the case of Fagan V Metropolitan Police commissioner
1968 show about the coincidence of mens rea and actus reus?
source Jimmy O Riordan Law for
OCR, Heinemann, 2003
Exam Question
• Comment on the importance of mens rea
to criminal offences. How do the courts
examine this concept? 50 marks
Source Law For OCR J
ORiorden, Heinenmann
Scenario Questions
• Police stop a car and search the car. During the
search police find small packets of cannabis.
When they question the owner he thought was
illegally importing money into the UK. At the
time this was not an offence .
No
• Has the D committed an offence?
No mens rea for
• If so what offence?
importing cannabis
even though an
• What Mens Rea would be required
actus reus, so no
offence
in this case?
R V Taaffe 1983
Scenario Questions
• Police officer sees D driving erratically, he
signals for the driver to pull over. The driver
pulls over and parks the tyre on the Police
officers foot. D was asked to move the car and
tells the police officer he will do it later. He was
asked to move it again. When questioned the D
said he had done this accidentally and no
intention of doing it nor done this recklessly.
• Has the D committed an offence?
Yes. Although no intention to park car on PO foot by refusing to remove it
he intended to leave it there. Then had the MR for the offence.
• What would CPS have to be prove?
That he had the mens rea and actus reus for the offence
of parking the car on PO foot. Fagan V Metropolitan
Police Commissioner 1968
Coincidence of Actus Reus and
Mens Rea
Mens Rea and Actus Reus have to be present at the same
time
In Thabo Meli V R 1954
• D’s attacked man
• believed they had killed him.
• Pushed body over cliff
• Was alive after attack
• Died later of hypothermia
Mens Rea and Actus Reus were combined in a series of
acts
Mens Rea can occur where D continues and act. Fagan V
Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1986