Mens Rea Case Studies ( AQA A-Level Law)

• How is Mens rea best described, and what case outlines how it differs from motive?

  Mens rea is the state of mind the defendant must have had at the time of committing the criminal consequence. The Mens rea for an offence will be specified in statute or criminal law. The case of Steane (1947) outlined how it differs from motive.
• True or false: Some crimes may require proof that the defendant intended the crime in order to prove guilt, whereas some crimes can be satisfied only by proof that the defendant was reckless.

  True
• What is Direct Intent? What case established a clear definition of Direct Intent?

  Direct intent is established when it can be proven that it was defendant's main wish, want, aim or desire to bring about the criminal consequence. The case of Mohan(1976) provided a clear definition of direct intent.
• What is indirect intent? What case outlined its definition?

  Indirect intent is described as when the criminal consequence was not the defendant's main wish, want, aim or desire; instead, the main purpose of their actions was something else, but they foresaw the outcome as a virtually certain consequence of their actions. Woolin (1998) clarified this definition.
• What is the subjective test to establish indirect intent?

  1. Was the outcome a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's actions?2. Did the defendant realise this?(This test is subjective as it is based upon whether the defendant saw the criminal consequence as 'virtually certain' as opposed to the reasonable man).
• How is recklessness (basic intent) defined and what case clarified its definition? Why is its test subjective?


  A defendant is reckless when the criminal consequence is not their main wish, want, aim or desire, but they foresee the risk of criminal consequence and continue anyway. It is the conscious taking of an 'unjustifiable risk'. Cunningham (1957) helped to define recklessness. The test for recklessness is subjective, as it must be proved that the defendant foresaw the risk of harm.
• True or False: Negligence is a type of mens rea.

  False. Negligence is technically not a type of mens rea but rather evidence of fault that is usually used as a civil law test, but can be applied in some criminal law such as gross negligence manslaughter. It is rarely sufficient for mens rea with some exceptions such as Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856).
• If the defendant commits the actus reus against an unintended victim, but holds the men rea for the intended victim, what principle may be applied in court to form an offence?

  Transferred Malice
• What are the two circumstances where malice can be transferred? Use case examples.


  When the defendant mistakes the actual victim for the intended victim. Latimer (1886)When an additional victim is harmed by the actions of the defendant. Mitchell (1983)
• As outlined by Pembliton (1874), when can malice not transfer?

  Between two completely different offences, e.g. between people and property.
• Describe the contemporaneity principle (coincidence of mens rea and actus reus).


  In order to establish criminal liability, it must be proved that the actus reus and mens rea were present at the same time (in coincidence). The defendant must have a guilty mine when carrying out a guilty act.
• Describe the continuing act principle, using a case example.


  In some circumstances, the series of actions can be treated as one continuing act - the actus reus continues throughout the whole chain of events, so mens rea can be established at some point.Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) - actus reus was the driving onto PC's foot, men's rea was the removal to drive off it.
• Describe the Single Transaction View


  It can be proven that the mens rea of the defendant continued throughout, ensuring its coincidence with Actus Reus at some point. The elements of the offence will be satisfied provided the actus reus and mens rea occur somewhere during a single transaction.Church (1966). Defendant carried out the actus reus when he threw her in the river and the mens rea when he knocked her out and decided to dispose of her body.
• Briefly describe Strict Liability Offences and their general characteristics.

  Strict liability offences require no mens rea in relation to all or some of the actus reus and are usually created by Parliament and defined by statute. The performing of the act alone is enough to attract liability. There are normally of a regulatory nature e.g speeding, pollution offences. They bring minor sentences e.g. fines.
• Why was the defendant found guilty in Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain ltd (1986) despite having no direct blame on his behalf?

  The D had unknowingly supplied drugs in accordance to forged prescriptions, which is a strict liability offence under the Medicines Act 1968.
• Name a case where the original ruling that an offence was of strict liability was quashed on appeal.


  Sweet v Parsley (1970). It was ruled that the offence of being in management of a property used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin required proof of mens rea in order to establish guilt.
• Explain the steps outlined in Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong (1988) that provide the criteria judges use in identifying an offence of strict liability.

  1. Start with the presumption that all cases require mens rea.2. Presumption can only be displaced when it is clearly stated in statute.3. An offence of 'criminal character' is more likely to require mens rea. B v DPP (2000)4. An offence is more likely to be of strict liability if it concerns an issue of public safety or social concern. Alpachell v Woodward (1972)5. Even where a statue is concerned with public safety, the presumption of mens rea stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective in promoting greater vigilance to prevent the commission of a prohibited act.
• With what step of determining whether an offence is of strict liability is the case of B v DPP (2000) relevant, and why?


  In B v DPP (2000) the D's conviction was quashed by the HOL as the weight and stigma of the conviction (2 years maximum sentence) ruled that it must require mens rea, and so was not of strict liability. This is relevant to step 3.
• With what step of determining whether an offence is of strict liability is the case of Alpechell v Woodward (1972) relevant, and why?


  In Alpechell v Woodward (1972) despite the company being unknowing to a faulty pipe polluting a river, the offence was of such high public safety concern that is was deemed of strict liability. Relevant to step 4.
• Briefly state the 4 primary reasons for strict liability offences.

  1. Saves the courts time and money.2. Encourages greater vigilance and acts as a deterrent.3. Tend to have minor sentences, so will not impact offenders reputation. 4. They protect the public, as outlined by Callow v Tilstone (1900).
• Mohan (1976)


  Case: D accelerated towards PC who jumped out of the way. D was charged with attempting to cause bodily harm.Relevance: Conviction was quashed as the judge's direction of direct intent was deemed misdirected. This resulted in a clearer definition of direct intent as the 'decision to bring about the criminal consequence'.

  
• Steane (1947)


  Case: D was convicted of assisting the enemy. He was threatened to have his wife and child taken to concentration camps if he did not create Nazi propaganda.Relevance: Outlines how men's rea and motive are different. Lord Goddard - 'the motive of a man's acts and his intentions in doing the act is, in law, different.

  
• Cunningham (1957)

  Case: D tore a gas meter from a house wall with the intent to steal the money inside. Gas escaped, making the occupant of the neighbouring house seriously ill. D was convicted of 'maliciously administering a noxious substance'Relevance: Conviction quashed. Appeal defined recklessness as 'the accused has foreseen that a particular kind of harm might be done, and yet has gone on to take the risk of it'.

  
• Pembilton (1874)


  Case: D threw a stone at people fighting, but the stone broke a window. The prosecution charged D with criminal damage.Relevance: Upheld that malice (mens rea) cannot transfer between 2 different offences - people to property.

  
• Mitchell (1983)


  Case: D, in an argument, pushed an elderly man in a que, who fell on an elderly lady, who later died of her injuries.Relevance: TRANSFFERED MALICE. Mens rea transferred from intended victim to unintended/additional victim, so D was guilty of both offences. This is one of the circumstances where transferred malice applies, as an additional victim is harmed by D's actions.

  
• Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks 1856


  ''Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations that ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do or....would not do

  
• Latimer (1886)


  Case: D aimed to hit a man in a pub with his belt in an argument, but he hit the landlady.Relevance: TRANSFERRED MALICE. The mens rea of hitting intended V transferred ti the unintended victim of his actus reus, the landlady. This is one of the circumstances where transferred malic applies, when D mistakes actual victim for intended victim.

  
• Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1968]


  Case: D accidently drove on PCs foot unknowingly, but refused to move it when PC asked to.Relevance: CONTEMPORANEITY RULE. Here, actus reus (driving onto foot) was not in coincidence to mens rea (refusal to move). The Continuing Act Principle applied as the actus reus continued throughout whole series of events, so mens rea was in coincidence at a point.

  
• Church (1966)


  Case: D punched V after she mocked him in a sexual situation. Believing she was dead, he then threw her in a lake, where she drowned.Relevance: Actus reus occurred when he threw her in the river, whereas mens rea occurred when he knocked her out and decided to dispose of her body. D was liable as the incident can be viewed as a series of events, meaning MR & AR occured during a single transaction

  
• Sweet v Parsley (1970)


  Case: D rented out house to her students, who, without her knowledge, were smoking cannabis inside of it. She was charged with being 'concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin', as the statue indicated no requirement for mens rea, so it was deemed an offence of strict liability. Relevance: On appeal, the HOL ruled that it was not a strict liability offence, so the conviction was quashed.

  
• Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd (1986)


  Case: D supplied drugs in accordance to unknowingly forged prescriptions, which were of a high standard.Relevance: Despite a lack of blame on the defendant's behalf, this violation of s58 (2) Medicines Act 1968 was ruled as a strict liability offence, and so required no mens rea.

  
• Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong (1885)


  This case defined the steps that judges should adhere to when defining if a case is of strict liability. (Details are in Theory set).

  
• B v DPP (2000)


  Case: A 15 year old boy asked for oral sex from a 13 year old girl on a bus (who he thought was 14). He was charged with gross indecency. Relevance: It was held that mens rea was required for offence and the max sentence of 2 years increased the offence severity. Therefore, it was not a strict liability offence.

  
• Alpachell v Woodward (1972)


  Case: A company was unknowingly polluting a lack with one of their faulty pipes. Relevance: Was held as a strict liability offence as the pollution was of 'upmost public importance'.

  
• Callow v Tilstone (1900)


  Case: The defendant, a butcher, was unknowingly selling unsafe meat, even though it has been checked by a vet.Relevance: Held as strict liability due to the importance of public safety.