Mens rea

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Kristina
  • Created on: 14-03-14 10:21
S8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
Jury not bound to infer that he intended/foresaw a result of his actions by virtue of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions
1 of 17
Steane
Jury not entitled to presume criminal intent b/c of innocent intent (re assisting enemy to save wife and child)
2 of 17
Moloney
Foresight of probable consequence not equivalent to intent, though can be evidence from which it can be inferred (drunkenly shooting stepfather)
3 of 17
Woollin
Jury can find indirect intent where death or serious injury was a "virtual certainty" affirming Nedrick (Father throwing 3 month old baby onto hard surface)
4 of 17
Matthews and Alleyne
Intent can be inferred if D foresaw death or serious injury as "virtual certainty" and it is very strong evidence (victim thrown from bridge)
5 of 17
Cunningham
Subjective test for recklessness - might D have foreseen that it might cause injury but proceed anyway? (removing gas meter and in doing so fracturing pipe, causing gas to leak into a bedroom)
6 of 17
R v G and R
Brings test back to Cunningham subjective recklessness - "and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk" (11 and 12 year old setting fire to newspaper and leaving under a bin)
7 of 17
Parker
Recklessness includes closing mind to the obvious risk of what could result (slamming down phone in anger)
8 of 17
Stephenson
Parker only to apply to cases where anger etc caused D to disregard/put to the back of their mind a risk; schizophrenia might prevent it entering altogether (lighting fire in straw stack for warmth)
9 of 17
Morgan (no longer good law for sexual offences)
Does not matter if MR is lacking because of an unreasonable belief - it is lacking and thus essential ingredient missing (husband telling men his wife would have sex with them and would resist because she was *****; in fact she did not want this)
10 of 17
K
Belief need not be reasonable provided it is genuine, but the more reasonable it is, the more genuine it is likely to be (indecent assault of a 14 year old - believing her to be 16)
11 of 17
Sweet v Parsley
Where a section is silent as to MR, presume parlt intended MR and read in words appropriately (management of premises used for the purposes of smoking cannabis resin - tenants - no knowledge)
12 of 17
Latimer
Transferred malice (Accidentally hitting woman next to intended target)
13 of 17
Fagan
Continuing act theory - MR can be superimposed on top of AR (car on policeman's foot)
14 of 17
Thabo Meli
impossible to divide up what was really a series of acts, one transaction (Ds struck V over head; believed him to be dead; rolled him over low cliff; death from exposure)
15 of 17
Church
Behaviour a series of acts; first acts had intent to kill/cause GBH (beating her; thinking she was dead and throwing her in the river)
16 of 17
Le Brun
MR and AR need not coincide (D struck wife unlawfully, then tried to move her to avoid people seeing; accidentally dropped while moving fracturing her skull)
17 of 17

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Jury not entitled to presume criminal intent b/c of innocent intent (re assisting enemy to save wife and child)

Back

Steane

Card 3

Front

Foresight of probable consequence not equivalent to intent, though can be evidence from which it can be inferred (drunkenly shooting stepfather)

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Jury can find indirect intent where death or serious injury was a "virtual certainty" affirming Nedrick (Father throwing 3 month old baby onto hard surface)

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Intent can be inferred if D foresaw death or serious injury as "virtual certainty" and it is very strong evidence (victim thrown from bridge)

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Mens rea resources »