general principles - mens rea

Created by

arpy

Cards (16)

mens rea describes the required mental state of D at the time the AR occured
actus reus is D's physical acts which from the objective element of the crime
direct intent - had as their inention to cause he actual result of action
intent means direct aim or purpose (r v moloney)
indirect intent - outcome was not what D intended to achieve
test to find indirect intent (r v woolin) :
test to find direct intent  
( r v woolin)
was the outcome virtually certian (objective)
did D realise it was virtually certain (subjective)
malice 
means intention or recklessness
(R v Cunningham)
first test for recklessness (r v cunnigham) 
D is aware of an objectivley undeniable risk and yet goes on to take it
second test for recklessness ( R v G)
at the time commited the AR, D must have been aware of the risk
in the circumstances known to D it mustve been objectivley unreasonable to take the risk
mistake
making a mistake as to an element of the AR may negate the MR
ignorance of criminal law never an excuse but civil law could be
Transferred Malice
D's MR against one person can be transfered and joined with the AR against the other and create a whole offence
R v Latimer
continuing acts
where the AR is a continuing act, it is sufficient for D to have the MR at any point during that continuance
Fagan v MPC
one transaction
when AR is a series of acts that make up one transaction, its is enough for D to have the AR and MR at some point even if they dont exactly coincide in time
R v Thabo meli
ommisions general rule
ommisions generally not criminalised
there is no duty to act as so to prevent harm
exceptions to commissions general rule
where D has a statutory duty to act e.g policeman
D has contractual duty to act ( r v pitwood)
where D is in a special relationship with V ( R v Stone)
where D inadvertently sets in motion a chain of events that causes risk of damaage and D becomes aware ( R v Miller)