Criminal Law - Mens Rea

MR
1. Intention. Must be for a particular result, relates to the defendants aim, purpose or desire. Direct intent is where the defendant sets out to make the act occur. Easier mens rea to prove although its quite rare.
  1. Oblique Intent: defendant doesn't necessarily mean the outcome but it was a virtual certainty that it could happen. Largely developed by judges. Smith, s8 CJA, Hyam, Moloney, Hancock and Shankland, Nedrick, Woolin, Re A and Matthews and Alleyne.
2. Recklessness: where the defendant sees there is a risk but decides to take it anyway. There use to be two levels of recklessness: obj and subj. Cunningham created subjective recklessness. Caldwell used an obj view of recklessness. Elliot did not appreciate the risks associated with setting a shed on fire, followed Caldwell's decision. G overruled Caldwell based on subj recklessness.
3. Knowledge: offense is committed if the defendant knowingly did something. Cannot be guilty if they didn't know, Sweet v Parsley.
4. Negligence: defendant falls so far short of the standards of the reasonable man as to create criminal liability. Stone and Dobinson, Gibbins and Proctor.
5. Transferred Malice: D intends for something to happen but it happens towards someone else. Pembliton.
6. Coincidence: point of which the AR and MR of the crime come together. May only be momentarily. Thabo, Church. Can be used for a continuing act, Fagan.
Attempts
1. Defendant must normally have intention for the full offense, D doesn't have it then he's NG. Easom, Husseyn. AG Ref no 1 and 2 decided that D could be guilty of conditional intent and could be charged with an attempt to steal all or some of the contents.
2. If the defendant was reckless, it's not enough. Millard and Vernon.
3. A person may intend to commit an offense and do everything in their power to commit it, but the offense is impossible to commit. Anderton v Ryan, Shivpuri overruled this.
Murder
1. Murder can be satisfied by: express malice aforethought- intention to kill or implied malice aforethought- intention to cause GBH. A person can be guilty of murder even if they didn't intend to kill, Vickers. Cunningham, intent to cause GBH is enough to satisfy MR of murder.
2. Intention: AG Ref no 3, cannot intend to injure a foetus as it doesn't have a separate existence from it's mother. General rules of intention apply to murder as well as transferred malice. Foresight of consequence doesn't mean intention. Moloney, Woolin,
Involuntary Manslaughter
1. Unlawful Act Manslaughter
  1. D must have mens rea for the unlawful act but it is not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act. Newbury and Jones
2. Gross Negligence Manslaughter
  1. The MR can be satisfied by negligence, this only difference is the negligence needs to be gross in conduct.
Non-Fatal Offenses Against The Person
1. s39, Assault: intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence, or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused.
2. s39, Battery: intention to apply unlawful physical force to another or recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied.
3. s47, ABH: defendant must intend or be subjectively reckless as to whether the victim fears or is subjected to unlawful force. No need for the defendant to intend/be reckless as to whether actual bodily harm is caused (Roberts, Savage).
4. s20, GBH: intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done or recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not. Parmenter: although the AR of a s20 requires a wound or GBH, there is no need for the D to foresee this level of injury. Charged with s47.
5. s18, GBH w/ intent: D must have intended to do some GBH or resist/prevent the law apprehension or detainer of any persons. Recklessness is not enough, intention must be proved. Morrison.
Theft
1. s2, Dishonestly: if there is a honest belief in legal right to deprive, the owner would consent or that the owner cannot be found having taken reasonable steps to do so, he is not guilty of theft. Holden. Small. A willingness to pay does not prevent a conviction for theft.
  1. Ghosh test: 1) was the defendant dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? 2) did the defendant realise he was dishonest by those standards? The test is used when s2 exceptions do not apply and a common sense definition is insufficient for the jury.
2. s6, intention to permanently deprive: given a broad interpretation. Destruction of property can amount to intention to permanently deprive. Person who takes the property and uses it as their own can fall within this statute. Borrowing can be theft if it's the equivalent to outright taking or disposal. Conditional intent is sufficient. Velumyl, Lavender, Lloyd and Easom.
Robbery and Burglary
1. Robbery: must have mens rea for the theft. They must also be dishonest, intend to permently deprive the other of property. They must also intend to use force to steal. Robinson, Corcoran (completed theft) Dawson, Clouden, B+R v DPP (need for force) Hale, Lockley (when forced is used).
2. Burglary: defendant must know or be subjectively reckless as to whether he his trespassing (for both 9 (1a) and 9 (1b)). For just 9 (1a) the defendant must have the intention to commit one of the three offences at the time of entering the building. Conditional intent is sufficient for this section even if the defendant doesn't steal anything.
  1. for 9 (1b) the defendant must also have mens rea for theft or GBH when committing or attempting to commit the actus reus of one of these offenses.

Nächster

Criminal Law - Mens Rea

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von kayleighisnotonfire vor mehr als 8 Jahre