Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Mens Rea (English law) - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Natural consequence - R v Moloney (1985):
        
        Judge should do no more than invite the jury to consider
        
        (i) whether the relevant consequence that must be proved (e.g. death/really serious injury to murder) is a natural consequence of the accused's voluntary act, and
        
        (ii) whether the accused foresaw that it will be a natural consequence of his act, and then direct the jury that,
        
        (iii) if so, proper for them to draw the inference that the accused intended that consequence
        
        Held: appeal allowed - murder to manslaughter
      - Probable consequence - R v Hancock (1986):
        
        Held: The direction should not merely refer to the 'natural consequence' of the accused's voluntary act but should also refer to the 'probable consequence' of his act
      - Virtual certainty - R v Nedrick (1986):
        
        The jury are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they are sure that
        
        death/serious bodily harm is a virtual certainty (barring some unforseen intervention) as a result of D's actions; and
        
        D appreciated that such was the case
        
        mens rea for murder to kill or intention to cause SBH
  - - - Did D know that it was a virtual certain consequence?
        
        Yes
        
        JURY IS ENTITLED TO FIND INTENTION
        
        No
        
        NO INTENTION
    - - NO INTENTION
- - - - Matthew and Alleyne (2003):
        
        Foresight of virtual certainty is merely evidence for jury to find contention
        [Good purpose and bad effect on the same principle]
      - Re A (2000):
        
        Foresight of virtual certainty is proof of oblique intention
        [Good purpose on A bad effect on B]
- - - - Adomako (1995):
        
        D must owe DOC to C
        
        Must have gross breach of DOC
        
        Breach must cause death
    - - Shorrock (1994):
        
        Acid House Party
        
        Held: D = liable, no need to prove he had actual knowledge of nuisance, but merely that he's responsible for a nuisacne that he knew/ought to have known about it (knowledge available to him), would be the consequence of acitvities on his hand
    - - Firearms Act 1968:
        
        S25 Supplying firearms to a person/drunk or Insane
        
        Offence for a person to sell/transfer firearm/ammunition to, or repair, prove or test any firearm/ammunition for, another person whom he knows/has reasonable cause for believing to be drink or of unsound mind
      - Sexual Offences Act 2003:
        
        Rape:
        
        (i) A person (A) commits an offence if -
        
        (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person, (B) with his penis,
        
        (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
        
        (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents
      - Rash:
        
        S279, 280, 285, 286, 287, 304A, 336, 337, 338
        
        Knowingly taking on unreasonable risk
        
        Rash is more similar to Reckless in English Law
        
        304A: Whoever causes the death of any person, by doing rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years/with fine/both
        
        Re Nidamarti Nagabhushanam (1872):
        
        Culpable rashness: acting WITH the consciousness that illegal consequences may follow but with hope that they won't, and will often believe that the actor has sufficient precaution to prevent it happening. Imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness (luxuria)
        
        Criminal negligence: gross and culpable neglect/ failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to public / individual having regarded all circumstances to which the charge has arisen, its the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted
        
        Idu Beg's Case (1881):
        
        Criminal rashness: Hazarding a dangerous/wonton act with the knowledge that it'll cause injury but with no intention to cause injury / knowledge that it will probably cause. Liability lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness / indifference as to the consequences
        
        Criminal negligence: is the gross and culpable neglect / failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to public / individual, having regarded all circumstances where the charge has risen. Its the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted
        
        Reform:
        
        A person behaves rashly if:
        
        (a) He or she is aware that the prohibited harm may result from his/her acts or omissions; and
        
        (b) Having regard to the circumstances known to him/her its unjustifiable to take that risk
- - - - Murder & Section 20 of OAPA 1861:
        
        Murder:
        
        MR (An intention unlawfully to kill/to do grievous bodily harm (GBH)
        
        Section 20 Offences Against Persons Act (OAPA) 1861 - Unlawfully and maliciously inflicting GBH
        
        MR (intended or was reckless as to some unlawful physical harm
      - Transfered malice
        
        Latimer (1886)
        
        Mitchell (1983)
        
        Pembilton (1874)
        
        AG's Ref (No.3 of 1994) (1997)
      - Dutch courage:
        
        Where D fortifies himself with alcohol to gain the courage to commit a crime
        
        Per Lord Denning:
        
        "If a man, whilst sane and sober, forms an intention to kill and makes preparation for it, knowing its a wrong thing to do, and then gets himself drunk so as to give himself Dutch courage to do the killing, and whilst drunk carries out his intention, he cannot rely on this self-induced drunkeness as a defence to a charge of murder, nor even as reducing it to manslaughter".
      - Contemporaneity:
        
        General rule - mens rea must exist at the same time of the relevant act, omission or event
        
        Thabo Meli (1954):
        
        If a death is caused by 1 act in a series of acts, its irrelevant that D lacked the necessary intent for murder when the act was done, if he had that intent when an earlier act in the series was done
        
        Exceptions
        
        Proof of state of mind:
        
        Proof that D intended/foresaw the consequences of his act
        
        Proof that D knew the circumstances surrounding his act where circumstances are part of the AR
        
        Some particular problems with proof
        
        DPP v Smith (1961):
        The jury must satisfy that:
        
        The accused must, as a reseasonable man, have contemplated that grievous bodily harm was likely to result to that officer
        
        That such harm did happen;
        
        The officer died in consequence; then the accused is guilty of capital murder
        
        Basis - presumption of law that a man intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts
        
        DPP v Morgan (1976):
        
        Facts: Common law offence of rape
        
        Judge directed the jury that: if they came to the conclusion that Ms Morgan had not consented the intercourse in question but that the D's believed / may have believed that she was consenting to it, they must still find the D guilty of rape if they were satisfied that they had no reasonable grounds for so believing
        
        Held:
        
        Judge's direction was wrong
        
        "Accordingly, if an accused in fact believed that the woman had consented, whether or not that belief was based on reasonable grounds, he could not be found guilty of rape"
        
        whether the victim actually had consent
        
        Problems with proof:
        
        Accident:
        
        Definition:
        
        CCJ - Did not intend to produce the prohibited consequence
        
        Did not intend the prohibited consequence
        
        If its an offence where liability is based on recklessness and/or negligence? D is liable even if there's an accident
        
        Horton v Gwynne (1921):
        
        Facts: D was charged with having unlawfully and wilfully killed a pigeon in such circumstances as did not amount to larceny at common law. D shot it while it was on the ground at a distance of 40 yards from him. His explanation he thought was a wild pigeon, but he didn't deny he intended to kill this particular pigeon.
        
        Held: D's act was both willful and unlawful. Offence was proved when it was shown that he killed this pigeon intentionally, although he mistook it for a wild pigeon. NOT ACCIDENTAL
        
        Relevant Mistakes
        
        R v Smith (1974):
        
        Facts: causing criminal damage s1(1) CDA 1971
        
        Held:
        
        no offence is committed under this section if a person destroys / causes damage to property belonging to another through mistaken belief that the property is his own,
        
        and provided that the belief is honestly held its irrelevant to consider whether or not its a justifiable belief
        
        R v Kimber (1983):
        
        Facts: Indecent assault on a mentally patient, mens rea - the intent to use violence against her without her consent
        
        Trial judge directed the jury:
        
        "its no defence that D thought / believed Betty was consenting. Question is: was she consent? it doesn't matter what he thought / believed"
        
        1 more item...