Mens Rea - True or False

HideShow resource information
Intention and recklessness are objective states of mind
False - They are subjective state's of mind.
1 of 18
Negligence is assessed objectively
True - Intention and recklessness on the other hand are assessed subjectively.
2 of 18
Direct intention is when D has a specific aim or purpose he/she is trying to achieve
True - it is the opposite of oblique intention where there is no specific aim
3 of 18
Oblique intent is also known as foresight of consequences
False - it is known as indirect intention; However, foresight of virtually certain consequences does form part of it.
4 of 18
Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was enacted to reverse the decision of R v Smith
True - the decision in Smith was seen as highly controversial and heavily criticised by academic commentators.
5 of 18
Smith [1962] is where D is presumed to intend or foresee the natural consequences of his actions but was subsequently overruled.
False - while the facts are correct, it was Smith [1961]
6 of 18
Hyam [1975] is where Intention is satisfied for murder if D knew death or serious harm was highly probably
True
7 of 18
Moloney [1985] defined the rule that the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it was that the consequence was foreseen and the greater the probability that consequence was also intended
False - that rule was defined in Hancock and Shankland [1986]. Moloney as where intent could be inferred where D foresaw the consequence as a natural consequence of his act
8 of 18
Lord Steyn gave this answer to a question in Woollin [1999]: The “substantial risk” test used by the trial judge blurred the line between intention and recklessness and was wrong. The test must involve foresight of (virtual) certainty.
True - this is in relation to whether the Jury should be directed as per Nedrick.
9 of 18
Did Lord Steyn's answer in Woollin [1998] amend the rule in Nedrick in any way?
False - it Woollin [1999] but the fact remains that it was amended to "the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty"
10 of 18
Recklessness is 'conscious taking of unjustified risk'
True - 'conscious' meaning that D is aware of (foresees) the risks and 'unjustified' meaning that a reasonable person would not take that risk
11 of 18
One of the leading cases on subjective recklessness R v Cunningham [1975]?
True - it's where Cunningham reckless comes from
12 of 18
Donoghue and Stevenson's rule on recklessness is "A man is reckless when he carries out the deliberate act appreciating that there is a risk that damage to property may result from his act."
False - Donoghue v Stevenson is a contract law case. R v Stephenson [1979] does define reckless using that quote though.
13 of 18
Caldwell states that a person will be negligent if he "Fails to foresee a risk that a reasonable person would have foreseen"
True - however bear in mind the loophole in Caldwell where "He does foresee a risk but either doesn’t take steps to avoid it or takes inadequate steps thus falling below the standard expected of the reasonable man"
14 of 18
Transferred malice is, according to Latimer [1886], when "Malice’ against X is transferred to actus reus against V "
True - this is the first instance of transferred malice in case law
15 of 18
In transferred malice, D is guilty of the crime against V, ONLY if he knows that V is there.
False, D can be totally unaware of V's presence and still be guilty of the offence
16 of 18
Transferred malice does render D guilty of the crime against V even if successful against X.
True - while the malice of the offence will be transferred the original offence will still have been successful.
17 of 18
Transferred malice can not be applied if the actus reus of the crime against V is not the same, or closely associated, with the actus reus of the crime for which D has mens rea against X.
True - this was the case in Pembliton [1874]. Example - D shoots at X with intention to kill but instead hits a car and damages the bodywork. Malice can also only be transferred once.
18 of 18

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Negligence is assessed objectively

Back

True - Intention and recklessness on the other hand are assessed subjectively.

Card 3

Front

Direct intention is when D has a specific aim or purpose he/she is trying to achieve

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Oblique intent is also known as foresight of consequences

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was enacted to reverse the decision of R v Smith

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal Law resources »