Mens Rea

Intention in depth

Direct intention = purpose to achieve the criminal outcome / oblique intention = when D didn’t desire the consequence, but could foresee it as ‘virtually certain’

R v H and S 1986 - oblique intention + foreseeability

R v Hancock and Shankland 1986 / Ds threw concrete block from a bridge onto the motorway and it killed a driver / court established the higher the probability of the outcome, the higher the intention

R v M 1985 - oblique intention reducing sentences

R v Moloney 1985 / Moloney and stepfather for drunk and engaged in a shooting contest, killed stepfather / Lords replaced murder with manslaughter / no clear probability = no oblique intention

R v N 1986 - foreseeability + intention / support by R v M and A 2003

R v Nedrick 1986 - courts cannot decide if there’s intention unless outcome can be reasonably foreseen / similar facts to R v Matthews and Alleyne 2003

Key act - CJA 1976

Criminal Justice Act 1967 - courts can only decide if there’s intention using evidence from the case, outcome must be of virtual certainty

Recklessness - road act

Road Traffic Act 1998 - causing death by dangerous driving can have mens rea (recklessness)

Recklessness - R v C 1957 - subjective R

R v Cunningham 1957 / man accidentally caused a gas leak, poisoned mother in law / Court ruled this was reckless, but no malice or intent to do harm - principle of subjective recklessness

Recklessness - E v C 1983 - test for R

Elliott v C 1983 / established objective test for criminal recklessness / applies to all no matter intelligence or awareness levels

R v G 2003 - facts

R v G 2003 / 2 children aged 11 and 12 set fire to newspapers, caused £1mn in damages to a store / Caldwell test too strict - court ruled recklessness only actionable if D aware of the risk

Overturning recklessness test - R v G 2003

R v G 2003 / recklessness only counts if person is able to foresee/aware of the risk (subjective test) / overturned objective Caldwell test for recklessness

Negligence (GNM) - R v B 1925

Gross negligence manslaughter / R v Bateman 1925 - woman died in childbirth, GNM conviction overturned as doctor’s negligence not bad enough to amount to a crime - must be grossly negligent

Mens Rea issues - coincidence + R v TM 1954

Coincidence - rule that MR must occur at AR / R v Thabo Meli 1954 - V thrown down stairs and left for dead, Ds claim MR to kill didn’t occur when V actually died, built courts dismissed this

Mens rea issues - correspond (example + constructive L)

MR must correspond with AR / e.g. constructive manslaughter - AR causing death, but no intention for murder only serious bodily harm / constructive liability - responsible for a consequence, even if not directly caused by it (base act = foreseeable)

Mens Rea issues - transferred malice (R v L 1886)

Transferred malice - intent can be transferred rto another person / R v Latimer 1886 - D meant to hit someone else with a belt, still liable via transferred malice

Theoretical arguments for MR

MR legitimises the criminal justice system / ensures only those with actual moral fault are culpable / prevents over-criminalisation (involuntary acts, insanity)

R v W 1998

R v Woollin 1998 / Woollin lost temper, threw 3 month old on hard surface, baby died / Lords quashed murder conviction - no direct intention to kill / oblique intention can still convict murder (if virtually certain)

R v A 1994

R v Adomako 1994 / anaesthetist monitoring patient during eye operation, oxygen pipe became disconnecting / anaesthetist failed to notice/respond to obvious signs - V died / Lords upheld GNM conviction

Adomako test for GNM

4 part Adomako test for GNM / duty of care - care must be breached - breach must directly caused death - conduct so bad it’s seen as criminal