mens rea
- Created by: Hayley Petts
- Created on: 26-05-14 19:57
View mindmap
- Mens rea
- Mohan (1975) - courts made it clear that D's motive or reason for doing the act not relevant
- direct intent - D intends specific consequence to occur
- indirect/oblique intent - D intends one thing but the actual consequence is another
- indirect intention requires foresight of consequence
- this means that in achieving the other thing, did D foresee that he would also also cause those consequences?
- s.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 creates a subjective test
- this makes it clear foresight of consequence is only part of the evidence from which intention can be inferred
- Recklessness
- D knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk
- subjective recklessness
- D sees the risk and decides to run it
- objective recklessness
- D did not see a risk which was obvious to the reasonable man
- subjective recklessness
- Cunningham (1957) - gas meter pulled off a wall sending fumes into house next door
- subjective - C did not intend to cause harm and had not taken known risk
- Caldwell (1982) - fire in hotel
- Objective - C said so drunk did not realise lives might be endangered but convicted as reasonable man would have seen risk
- Elliot v C (1983) - girl with learning difficulties set fire to shed
- objective - girl did not see risk and could not see it, but convicted as reasonable would have seen risk
- G and another (2003) - boys set wheelie bin on fire causing £1m damage
- objective - trial judge directed jury to consider whether reasonable man would have seen risk - boys convicted
- subjective - HL quashed conviction and overruled Caldwell
- Lidar (2000) - bouncer killed under wheels of L's car
- subjective - L convicted as saw highly probable risk of serious injury and decided to take risk
- D knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk
Comments
No comments have yet been made