Mens Rea

• Larsonneur (1933)


  Absolute liability - this means they may be guilty even though the AR was not voluntary e.g. where D was taken to England against her will
• Alphacell v Woodward (1972)


  Strict Liability - A factory was fined for polluting a river when its pumps blocked. The Court said it was in the public interest to protect the environment.
• B v DPP (2000)


  Strict Liability - D (15) was charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit gross indecency believing she was over 14. The Court quashed D's conviction and said MR was needed for this serious offence.
• Sweet v Parsley (1971)


  Strict Liability - D rented a farmhouse to students who unknown to her used it to smoke cannabis. The Court said that MR is required in order for D to be guilty of a crime.
• Harrow v Shah (1999)


  Strict Liability - A staff member sold a lottery ticket to a 13-year-old who looked older. The owners were liable despite telling their staff not to sell tickets to anyone underage.
• Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)


  Strict Liability - D was charged with selling alcohol to a drunk person. It did not matter that D didn't know the person was drunk. The offence was complete when the sale took place and the person served was drunk.
• Callow v Tillstone (1900)


  Strict liability - A butcher was convicted of selling contaminated meat even though he had taken reasonable care not to commit the offence and it was certified as fit for human consumption.
• Adomako (1994)


  Negligence - an anaesthetist was liable for gross negligence manslaughter when he took several minutes to notice a breathing tube had disconnected during an operation. A reasonable anaesthetist would have noticed in a few seconds.
• R v G (2003)


  Recklessness - The two D's (11,13) had not realised the danger of a fire spreading to a nearby supermarket. It was only fair to judge them against the risks they had foreseen.
• Cunningham (1957)


  Recklessness - D tore a gas meter from a wall to steal money. Gas escaped poisoning a neighbour. Since D did not realise there was a possibility of his occurring, he was not reckless.
• Woollin (1998)


  Indirect intent - if it is a virtual certainty as a result of D's actions and D appreciated it was. D threw his baby across the room. He argued that he had thrown him towards the pram but had not intended to kill him.
• Mohan (1975)


  Direct intent - 'a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence' no matter whether D desired the consequence or not. D drove his car straight at a police officer with the aim of injuring him.