Intention

• What does 'mens rea' mean in Latin?


  'Guilty mind'
• What is the exception to the requirement of mens rea?


  Strict liability offences where no mens rea element is required
• What are typical mens rea indicating words?


  Intentionally, Knowingly, Recklessly, Maliciously, Negligently
• How does Mohan [1975] define mens rea?


  As a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence
• What are the two categories of intent crimes?

  Basic intent and specific intent offences
• What is an example of a basic intent crime?

  Criminal damage
• What does the specific intent require?


  Intent to commit the act and a desire to achieve a specific result
• What is the highest form of mens rea?


  Specific intent
• What does the example of s18 GBH illustrate about specific intent?


  It shows that the defendant must intend to cause grievous bodily harm
• What is the difference between basic intent and specific intent crimes?

  • Basic Intent: Intend or are reckless in committing a crime without needing a specific result.
  • Specific Intent: Intend to commit the act and desire a specific result.
• Why is motive not the same as intention?


  Motive is irrelevant in deciding whether the mens rea for a crime exists
• In the case of Bob, did he have the mens rea for s18 GBH?


  No, because he did not intend to bring about the prohibited consequence
• What is direct intent?


  When a defendant intends one thing and achieves it
• What is indirect (oblique) intent?


  When a defendant realizes that a consequence is almost inevitable from their actions
• What is the key question regarding the probability of a consequence in indirect intent?


  Should the probability of the consequence be looked at objectively or subjectively?
• What did DPP v Smith (1961) establish about foresight of consequences?


  It was viewed objectively
• What did the Criminal Justice Act 1967 change about the jury's consideration of foresight?


  The jury must decide what the defendant foresaw or intended, not what they should have foreseen
• What was the outcome of Hyam v DPP [1975] regarding intent?


  The jury must convict if they are satisfied that the defendant knew the act was highly probable to cause serious harm
• What two-part test did R v Moloney [1985] introduce regarding intention?


  Was death or serious injury a natural consequence of the act, and did the defendant foresee it?
• What did R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] change about the test for intention?


  It introduced the probability of consequences test
• What is the 'virtual certainty' test introduced in R v Nedrick [1986]?


  Death or serious bodily harm must be a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions
• What must the jury be sure of in murder cases according to R v Woollin [1999]?


  That death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that the defendant appreciated this
• What does the probability of consequences test state regarding foreseen consequences?


  The greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen.
• What was the outcome of R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] regarding juries?


  Juries need to be reminded that the decision is theirs based on all the evidence.
• What action did D take against V in the case of R v Hancock & Shankland?


  D poured paraffin through the letter box and set it alight.
• What was D's claim when he told police, "I didn't want anyone to die"?


  D claimed he was not a murderer and only intended to frighten V.
• What test did Lord Lane CJ introduce in R v Nedrick [1986]?


  The 'virtual certainty' test for indirect intention.
• What must the jury feel sure of in a murder charge according to R v Nedrick [1986]?


  That death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of D's actions.
• How did R v Woollin [1999] amend the virtual certainty test?


  It changed the word 'infer' to 'find' regarding intention.
• What does s8 CJA 1967 state about intention?


  It uses the word 'infer' regarding intention.
• What was concluded in Re A (Conjoined Twins) 2000 regarding jurors' discretion?


  It concluded that there was no discretion for jurors in finding intention.
• What happened in R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] regarding the murder convictions?


  The CA upheld the murder convictions based on the virtual certainty of death.
• What does the case of R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] imply about foresight of consequences?


  Foresight of consequences is evidence of intention but not definitive proof.
• What is transferred malice in criminal law?


  • D can be guilty if they intended to commit a similar crime against a different victim.
  • Example: Beth punches Molly but accidentally hits Maddie.
• What was the outcome of Latimer (1886) regarding transferred malice?


  D was guilty of assault against the woman even though he did not intend to hit her.
• In Pembliton (1874), why was D not guilty of transferred malice?


  Because the intention to hit people could not be transferred to breaking a window.
• What is required for an offence to take place in terms of AR and MR?


  • Both Actus Reus (AR) and Mens Rea (MR) must be present at the same time.
  • Example: If you change your mind before committing the act, you cannot be guilty.
• Why was D found guilty in Thabo Meli v R (1954) despite AR and MR occurring at different times?


  The courts combined them in a 'series of acts' leading to a conviction.
• What happened in Church (1965) regarding the coincidence of AR and MR?


  D was convicted of manslaughter after disposing of V's body, believing she was dead.
• What is a continuing act in criminal law?

  • A situation where the AR is ongoing and the MR develops during that time.
  • Example: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986) where D's MR developed while the car was on the officer's foot.