Rules and Theory about Criminal Law - Mens Rea

?
View mindmap
  • Rules and Theory about Criminal Law - Mens Rea
    • INTENTION
      • Oblique
        • Someone may not be aiming to bring about the outcome, (Dudley & Stephens), but in law they nonetheless intended it
        • Main aim may not be prohibited consequence
        • definition: D intends something else but had foresight that he would cause the consequence.
        • current test: Woollin - whether the consequence was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that
        • Only apply tests in Woollin and Matthews & Alleyne in oblique intent!! others are only for evaluation questions
        • Matthews & Alleyne: foresight of consequence is just evidence from which the jury can find intention
      • Specifc
        • D means or aims to bring about the consequence (Mohan)
          • 'it is a decision to bring about, so far as it lies within the accused's power, the prohibited consequence, no matter whether the accused desired the consequence of his act'
        • motive is not important
          • 'it is a decision to bring about, so far as it lies within the accused's power, the prohibited consequence, no matter whether the accused desired the consequence of his act'
        • you can aim to do something you do not want e.g. flight to Manchester
        • even if you have a 'positive motive' you can be liable
    • RECKLESSNESS
      • subjective test: foreseeing that the kind of harm that did occur might occur and going ahead with the act anyway (Cunningham)
      • subjective recklessness was where the defendant is aware of a risk and it was, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk (G&R)
    • TRANSFERRED MALICE
      • Injury to one person is intended, but inflicted on another person
        • D still liable if intended a similar crime on another (Latimer, Mitchell)
      • Only applies when crime actually committed is SIMILAR to  one intended.
      • If someone throws a stone intending to hit someone, but breaks a window, this does not amount to transferred malice. (Pembliton)
        • Only applies when crime actually committed is SIMILAR to  one intended.
      • NB General malice - D may still have intent when he doesn't have a specific target in mind
        • e.g. terrorist plants a bomb intending to kill anyone in that building
    • COINCIDENCE OF ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA
      • Physical act and mental state must coincide for D to be guilty
      • 'continuing act' - actus reus stretches over a period of time thereby making D liable if they have the right mental state at any given time (Fagan)
      • 'series of events' - if mens rea occurs during that series then liability will follow (Thabi Meli, Church)

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »