Definition of Mens Rea PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture and reading notes on mens rea...

Description

Chapter 3 – Mens Rea 

   

Central issues: o A D is taken to have intended a result if it was their aim/purpose. If the result as foreseen as a virtually certain consequence as a direct result of D’s actions then the jury and entitled to find that the D intended the result. o D’s will be found to be reckless if they appreciated that because of their actions there was a chance that the result may occur. o D will be negligent if they behaved in a way that a reasonable person wouldn’t, rare for negligence to be sufficient MR for a serious criminal offence. o If D is voluntary intoxicated when committing an offence then generally they will be found to have been reckless. Mens rea: legal term to describe element of a criminal offence that relates to D’s mental state. Some crimes don’t require any mental state of D, these are known as strict liability offences. As a general rule, intention is seen as the worst kind of mens rea, recklessness is next and then negligence. Intention: o Intention is given its normal meaning: purpose/aim. o Most blameworthy state of mind. o In R v Moloney the House of Lords confirmed that ‘intention’ was to be given its normal meaning and left to jury’s discretion. o Courts always state that ‘intention is something different from motive/desire’ (as per Moloney). In Hales, D ran over a police officer in attempt to escape an arrest, it wasn’t his motive to kill the police officer but he did intend to kill as he was ‘prepared to kill in order to escape’. o Someone may act instinctively in the heat of the moment and yet intend to kill (Cane [2000]). o Indirect/oblique intention: not D’s purpose to produce the result but the result was a VCC of D’s actions. o Sometimes can be necessary for judge to give further direction for meaning of intention as in Royle. o Woollin gives the best and most well known advice on giving correct direction. o Parliament has made it clear that just because D foresaw death was a likely result of his actions doesn’t mean that he necessarily intended death, as per Moloney. o Woollin’s virtual certainty test.





o Even if D is intoxicated the jury/magistrates should consider the intoxication as part of the evidence in deciding whether the result was the D’s purpose or whether he foresaw the result as virtually certain.  A ‘drunk intent is still an intent’.  If the drunken D lacked intent he is not guilty of an intent-based crime, but may be guilty of a recklessness based offence. Recklessness: o Risk taking is at the heart of recklessness. o Cunningham recklessness and Caldwell recklessness used to be the two types, until Caldwell was abolished. o Cunningham recklessness has two elements:  D was aware that there was a risk that their conduct would cause a particular result.  The risk was an unreasonable one for the defendant to take. o In Cunningham, Bryne J explained that recklessness meant that ‘the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it’. o Stephenson illustrated this test best (D suffered from schizophrenia, set fire to haystack and destroyed it, due to illness didn’t realise the risk). This decision caused problems in R v Parker. o Recklessness requires that D actually saw the risk as in Foster v CPS. o In Brady the CoA rejected that after G and R a defendant would only be reckless if he foresaw an obvious and significant risk. o Risk must be unreasonable. This requirement is objective. o D’s whom were voluntarily intoxicated at time will be treated as having foreseen the risk (Bennet [1995]). If D’s are involuntarily intoxicated then there are no special rules, D’s will be reckless if they foresaw the risk but if they didn’t then they won’t be reckless (Kingston [1995]). o In Caldwell, before it was abolished, D’s were reckless if:  They were aware of a risk, OR;  There was an obvious and serious risk AND they failed to consider whether or not there was a risk. o Caldwell was different to Cunningham as it included D’s whom were not aware of an obvious risk. o It was decided in R v G and R that Caldwell was to be abolished. Negligence: o Definition: If the D has behaved in the way in which a reasonable person wouldn’t then they are negligent. o Negligence uses an objective test. o No need to show that D intended or foresaw a risk. o Gross negligence:  In relation to manslaughter a D’s negligence must be labelled gross negligence (essentially really bad negligence). It must be shown

that the D killed negligently and that this negligence was so bad as to justify a criminal conviction. Manslaughter is the only offence which requires the negligence to be gross. 







Intoxication: o R v Heard was famous intoxicated case. o Three relevant ways in a criminal case:  D may seek to rely on his intoxication as evidence he lacked MR.  Prosecution may seek to rely on D’s intoxication to establish D’s MR.  Certain crimes that specifically refer to being intoxicated, e.g. driving under the influence. Knowledge and belief: o Knowledge involves a positive belief that a state of affairs exists. A D who fears that circumstances may exist and deliberately decides not to make any further inquiries in case his or her suspicions prove well founded will be said to know the circumstances. o Westminster CC v Croyalgrange. Transferred malice: o Applies to any mens rea. o Classic example is if: A shots B and misses and kills C instead. o Atorney-General’s Reference (No.3 of 1994) Coincidence of AR and MR: o AR and MR must exist at same point to be valid, they need to coincide. o Several exceptions:  As in Meli v R, as long as an unbroken causal connection between act and death/result, then is valid to be coincided, it is a question of fact for the jury.  Within a continuing act as in Fagan v MPC, he attained the required MR once he realised he was on the police officer’s foot and refused to move.  Another example is in R v Miller, with the tramp whom set fire to the mattress and failed to mitigate against the fire when he realised, thus giving him the required MR.  Sometimes can be unclear when AR occurred, as in AtorneyGeneral’s Reference (No.4 of 1980), whereby multiple gruesome injuries were conducted by D to his girlfriend and it was unclear when the death/AR occurred....