Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Mens Rea (Oblique intent (Will be liable if they realised that death or…

- - - - Smith (1961): Police officer on bonnet of police car, zig zag, died. Level of foresight = Natural and probable
      - Criminal Justice Act 1967: Test changed to be a subjective one - level of foresight = Natural and probable consequence
      - Hyam (1975): Posted fire through v's letterbox, killed two daughters - Level of foresight = Highly probable, Foresight = intention.
      - Moloney (1985): D+V playing with a gun, V goaded D into shooting him - he did and he died. Level of foresight = Natural and probable consequence, foresight does not = intention.
      - Hancock and Shankland (1986): Throwing breezeblocks off a bridge to enforce a picket line. Killed taxi driver. Level of foresight:Virtually certain result, foresight does not = intention
      - Nedrick (1986): D didn't get get on with neighbour, poured paraffin through letterbox, son trapped and died. Level of foresight = Natural and probable, foresight may = intent
      - Woollin (1998): D lost his cool and threw baby across the room, hit floor and died. Level of foresight = Virtually certain result, foresight may = intent
- - - - 1) Did D see the risk and run it
        2) Was the risk unjustified?
- - - - There is a presumption of mens rea
        
        Sweet v Parsley (1970): Rented her house out to students who grew cannabis in it, charged with managing premises for production of drugs, held that she needed full mens rea to be convicted, and NG of SL because she was unaware.
      - We must look at the wording of the act
        
        Cundy (1884): Unlawfully selling alcohol to a drunken person, appealed because he wasn't aware, appeal dismissed because s.13 of the Licensing Act doesn't mention mens rea, whilst other offences under the same act do.
      - Presumption is strong if the offence is a true crime
      - Mens rea can be dismissed if the statute says so
      - Can be dismissed if it is a social issue.
        
        Blake (1997): D was convicted of broadcasting on a 999 frequency without a licence because the broadcasts could have interfered with emergency services and air traffic controllers.
        
        Warner 1969: D sold boxes perfume, but some contained drugs, guilty of SL as they are a danger to society
        
        Gammon (1985) : D's building company deviated from plans, buildings were collapsing, D G of an SL offence as unsafe buildings are a danger to society.
    - - Minor offences, eg selling an out of date sandwich, more likely to be SL good for deterrence.
        
        Shah & Shah (1999): Owners of shop aware of rules about selling lottery tickets, but an employee sold one to an underage boy, even though he seemed older. \liability was strict,no mens rea was needed.
        
        Smedley's (1974): V bought a tin of peas that contained a dead caterpillar , guilty of a strict liability offence, quasi-criminal crime.