Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Mens Rea - Coggle Diagram

- - - - The mens rea is simply transferred to the new actus reus. Either intention or recklessness can be transferred.
  - - - Thabo Meli and others (1954)
- - - - In everyday language, recklessness means taking an unjustified risk of a particular consequence occurring.
      - Recklessness is the mens rea sufficient for many crimes
        
        The question that has troubled the courts for years is whether recklessness should be assessed ‘subjectively’ or ‘objectively and its legal definition has radically changed in recent years.
        
        The court decided to establish a subjective test for recklessness, in that the defendant recognised the risk of harm, and yet went on to take the risk anyway.
        
        Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell, a criminal damage case, introduced an objective test for recklessness, in that recklessness should be determined according to what the ‘ordinary, prudent individual’ would have foreseen.
        
        In R v G and another (2003), their Lordships unanimously declared that the objective test for recklessness was wrong and restored the Cunningham subjective test for criminal damage.
        
        In order to define recklessness, the House of Lords in R v G and another (2003) preferred to use the words of the Draft Code
        
        Caldwell test was capable of unfairness and came under significant judicial and academic criticism, and in the late 1980's the courts began a gradual movement to reject Caldwell and return to the Cunningham subjective test
    - - A court is concerned purely with what the defendant was intending at the time of the offence, and not what a reasonable person would have intended in the same circumstances.
        
        To help comprehension of the legal meaning of intention, the concept can be divided into two: direct and oblique intention.
        
        Oblique intention
        
        The defendant doesn’t want the result that occurs but realises that in acting as he does there is a possibility that it will happen.
        
        With indirect intention, the defendant intends one thing but another thing happens.
        
        The issue has been whether the defendant foresaw the consequences of their actions, and this (rather broad) phrase has been an important area of discussion and development in the courts.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Hyam v DPP (1975)
        
        Direct intention
        
        The defendant wants a particular result and carries out an act to achieve it. This is generally easier to prove based on the circumstances of the crime.
        
        The question of whether indirect/ oblique intention exists is complicated. It has been confused by a variety of model directions from different judges.
        
        1 more item...
- - - - Gross Negligence
        
        Generally applies to cases of involuntary manslaughter. In some cases the degree of negligence is so high that it may create a state of mind.
        
        R v Adomako (1994)