Law - Mens rea
- Created by: ellieleyland
- Created on: 13-03-18 21:28
View mindmap
- Mens Rea
- Intention
- Not the same as motive. A decision to bring about a certain consequence
- E.g Mohan
- Direct intent - intends specific consequence to occur
- Oblique intent - D intends one thing, but the actual consequence is another ting
- Foresight of consequence
- Consequence must have been a virtual certainty and the D must have realised this e.g Woollin
- Recklessness
- Subjective recklessness occurs when D realises there's a risk of harm but carries on anyway
- Lower level of intention so it is used for crimes that aren't as serious
- Mens rea for assualt and battery, s47, s20 and criminal damage
- e.g R v Cunningham
- 'Maliciously' means either intention or subjective recklessness
- Case of Savage 1992 confirmed this principle
- 'Maliciously' means either intention or subjective recklessness
- Negligence
- A person is negligent if they fail to meet the standards of the reasonable man
- Lower level of fault than intention and recklessness
- Isn't widely used in criminal law
- Strict Laibility
- Crimes that don't require a mens rea with at least 1 or more elements of the actus reus
- About 1/2 of all statutory offences are strict liability, over 3,500.
- Mainly aimed at businesses e.g health and safety offences
- Presumption of mens rea e.g Sweet v Parsley
- Gammon test
- D must be proved to have done the AR
- Must be a voluntary act
- No need to prove MR for at least part of the AR
- No 'due diligence' defence
- No defence of mistake
- R v Prince - taking girl under 16 out of possession of her parents
- Callow v Tillstone - butcher
- Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah - lottery ticket
- Le Cocq - alcohol
- Alphacell - pollution
- B v DPP - inciting child under 14 to commit act of gross indecency
- Storkwain - fake prescription
- B v DPP - inciting child under 14 to commit act of gross indecency
- Alphacell - pollution
- Le Cocq - alcohol
- Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah - lottery ticket
- Callow v Tillstone - butcher
- Mental element of a crime
- Absence of mens rea will result in acquittal e.g R v Clarke
- Each offence has its own mens rea except offences of strict liability
- It is for the prosecution to prove the required mens rea
- Intention
Comments
No comments have yet been made