Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

mens rea farah - Coggle Diagram

- - - - this occured in the case of hanock v shankland 1986
        
        d were miners who were on stike - they tried to prevent another miener from going work by pushing a concrete block from a bridge onto the road along which he was being driven to work in a taxi - the block struck the windscreen of the taxi and jukked the driver
        the trial judge used the moloney guidelines ti durect the jury - convicted however ob aooeak the court of appeal quashed their convictions : :
        
        said r v moloney vague and misleading
        
        added to consider that it was probable because probability is important
    - - an example of this type of situation is where d decides to set fire to her shop in order to claim insurance 0 ger main aim is damaging the shop and getting the insurance, unfortuantely she starts the fure when the staff are still in the shop and sojme of them are seriously inhured
      - the starting point of foresight of consequence is s8 of the criminal justice act 1967 which states that
        
        a court or jury, in determining whether a person has commiitted an offence
        
        is not bound in law to infer that he intended ir firesaw resykt if gus actions by reason of only its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions ; but
        
        shall decide whether he did intend or forsee that resuly by reference to all the evidence - drawing such inferences from yje evidence as appear proper in the circumstances
        
        the important point is that the defendendent did intend or forsee the result
      - moloneyt
        
        d and his step father had considerable amount of alcohol a a family party - after tje party they were heard talking and laughing then there was a shot - d phoned the police saying h had just murdered his step father, d said that they had been seeing who was faster at loading and firing a shotgun - he had loadedhis gun faster than step father who said that d didnt have the guys to pull the trigger and d said i didny aim the gun i just pulled the trigger and he was dead 0 d was convicted of murder and the conviction was quashed on appeal
        
        The defendant pulled the trigger but in his drunken state he did not believe the gun was aimed at the step father.
        
        in r v moloney the house of lords ruled that the foresight of consequences is only evidence of intentenion and is not intention iys self
        lord bridge stated that jurors should be told to consider the two questiobs :check:- was death or serious bodily harm a natural consequence of the defendents act
        did the d forsee that consequence as being a natural result of his or her act
        
        both need to be passed
    - - d had a grudge against a woman he poured paraffin through a letter bix of her house and set it alight - a child died in teh dire, d was convicted of murder but the court of appeal quashed the conviction and subsituted one of manslaughter
      - in the case of nedrick, the court of appeal tried to make the law decided in moloney and hancock and shankland easier for the jurors to understand and apply in murder trials - the court of appeal said it was helpful for jury to ask themselves two qyestions
        
        how probable was the consequence that resulted from ds voluntary act
        
        dud d fircee tge act
        
        it was necessaru for the consequence to be a virtual certaintty and for d to have realised that - if this was so then there was eidence from which the jury could infer that d had the necessary intention
        
        appeal cos highly probablec hanged to virtual certainty
    - - d threw his threee month old baby towards the pram which was against a wall some three or four feet away, the baby had suffered serious head injuries and died, the court ruled that the consequence must have been a virtual certainty and the defendent musthave realised this. where the jury was satisfied on both these points then there was evidence in which they could find intention
      - Note that D was still not convicted of murder in this case. The trial judge had misdirected the jury by saying that so long as death was a ‘substantial risk’ then the jury should convict of murder (which the jury then did). The House of Lords said that ‘substantial risk’ was far too broad a test for intention and that death had to be a ‘virtual certainty
      - the house of lords had dound that the judge had erred in using the prhase substantial risk rayher than virtual certainty - this was because the phrase substantial risk blurred the distinction between intention and recklessness on behalf of the defendent
        
        The two stage test was that of whether death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of ds actions - this part of the test is objective meaning its based on what the jury themselves think
        
        And whether the defendent themselves appreciated that this was the case - this part of the test is subjective
    - - misdirection
        
        Ds threw the victim into a river, who drowned and died
        
        Ds argued although they knew the victim could not swim, they did not intend for the victim to die
        
        The judge gave the direction to the jury that it must find Ds guilty of murder if they found that they had foresight that the victim was ‘virtually certain’ to die or suffer serious harm
      - result
        
        The defendants were charged with murder. They argued that they did not intend to kill the victim, despite knowing that he was unable to swim.
        
        The trial judge directed the jury that they should convict the defendants of murder if the defendant appreciated it was a virtual certainty that the victim would die by drowning. The defendant appealed, arguing this was a misdirection
        
        The difference between tnis case and in r woollin is that the leading lord in r v woollin said that if both tests are satisfied then the defendant will hav intention - however in this case the judge said that it was no necessary to pass both.
        
        formulated some doubts in the laws states in r v woolin
- - - - d tore a gasmeter from the wall of an empty house in order to steal the money in it, thsi casused the gas ti seep into the ouse next door where a wiman was affected by it. cunningham was charged with an offence under s23 of the offences against the person act of 1861 of maliciously administering a noxious thing - iy was held that he was not guilty since he did not realise the risk of gas escaping into the next door house. he had not intended to cause the harm nor had he taken a risk he knew about
      - However there is an issue in this case as to whether the trial judge had errerd in his instruction to jiry correct meaning of malic
      - Conviction quashed as judge described it as “wicked instead of malice” which was an incorrect definition and mislead the jury The correct test for malice was whether the defendant had either actual intent to cause harm or was reckless as to the possibility of causing foreseeable harm. This is known as “Cunningham Recklessness”.
      - The Court of Appeal, allowing D’s appeal, held that for a D to have acted "maliciously" there had to be proof that he intended to cause the harm in question or had been reckless as to whether such harm would be caused. In this context, recklessness involved the defendant in being aware of the risk that his actions might cause the prohibited consequence. In other words, recklessness was subjective.
  - - - Subjective recklessness is an important concept in criminal law. For any crime where the mens rea element is recklessness or maliciousness, the court will use a two part test:
      - Did the defendant realise that there was a risk of the consequence happening?
      - Did the defendant then take the risk of the consequence happening?
      - In more modern statutes, the word ‘recklessly’ is more often used. In s1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the statute says that “A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”
      - the key criminal offences that carry the mens rea of subjective recklessness
        
        assault
        
        battery
        
        assault occasioning actual bodily harm
        
        malicious wounding
        
        and many others
- - - - d charged under s 58 of the medicines act 1968 which states thtat no one shall supply drugs withour doctors persceuotion - d had supplied it on perscrition but they were later found to be forged - no finding that d had acted dishonestly, improperly or even neglifebtly. forgery was sufficient to decieve pharmacists however house of lords held that the divisional court was rihgt to firect magistrates to convict d
  - - - act - taken the girl out of the posession of her fatehr
        
        intention
      - under the age of 16 factually
        
        strict liabilty
      - result of prince
        
        under age of 16
        
        d reasonably believed that she was 18, but this did not matter as it is strict liability
        
        posession of brother
        
        yes - intended to remove her from possesion of fathe
    - - met prostitute 14 on street took her to another place where they had sex not ptoved in the court that he knew the girl was living with eher ftae
      - result of hibert
        
        d may well have known that she was under the age of 16, but that did not matter as it was strict liability anywya
        
        remove girl from possession of her father
        
        no intention - it could not be proved that d knew the girl was in posession of her father so could not have had teh necessary intent
  - - - d aimed a blow with a belya y a man in a pub because the man had ayyacked him the belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. d was guilty of an assault againsgt the woman although he had not actually intended to hit her.
    - - gnango and another man known as bandana man shot at eachother - bandana man hit an innocent passerby and killed her - gangi was treud adb convicted for her murder - the court of appeal quashed the convicyion but it was reinstated by the supreme court - they held he was guilty of the murder of the passrbey as by agreeing to shoot out with bandana man he was attaempting to murder bandana man and also aidinh and abetting bandana mans ayyempt to murder im - bandana woulld jabe nee huilty of yje murder of yhe passerbu under the doctrine of transiferred malice - this menay yhay gnango because of his participation in yhe temptyed murder of himself was also guilty of murder of the passeryby