Criminal Liability - Topic 1 - MR and coincidence of AR & MR

MR and coincidence of AR & MR

Mens Rea definition (AO1)

• D’s guilty mind at the time he carries out the actus reus.

• MR represents D’s fault in carrying out the AR.

• Absence of MR implies that D’s AR was accidental

The different levels of fault

• Intention (Direct and Indirect)

• Recklessness

• Dishonesty

• Negligence

(Refers to sentencing, not conviction)

Direct Intent definition (AO1)

D intends the consequences of his conduct when they are his ‘aim or purpose’ (Direct intent test)

Direct Intent case

(R v Mohan)

D aimed at accelerated at police officer who told him to stop

Indirect / Oblique Intent definition (AO1)

Where the prohibited consequence is Virtually Certain to occur (objectively) and the D realises this (Subjectively) then a jury may find that D intended the consequences

Indirect / Oblique Intent case

(R v Woollin)

where the defendant was convicted of manslaughter after throwing his three-month-old son onto a hard surface, leading to death. Seen that he had no intent to kill or for serious harm.

Recklessness definition (AO1)

D is reckless as to the consequences of his conduct where he foresees that his conduct creates an unjustified risk of those consequences occurring and D takes that risk (Subjective)

Recklessness case

1. (R v Cunningham)

   D tore a gas meter off the wall, causing gas to escape. The gas seeped into his future mother in-law’s bedroom and she was poisoned. The court held that the defendant had not acted recklessly as he did not realise the risk of the outcome occurring

2. (R v R & G)

   two boys set fire to a bin, leading to a large fire that caused property damage. The House of Lords held that the standard for recklessness required the defendant to have foreseen a risk of the damage occurring, which the boys did not.

Transferred Malice definition (AO1)

Where D has mens rea for an offence directed to X but D’s conduct in fact impacts on V, the MR directed towards D may be transferred onto the actual V provided it is the same type of offence

Transferred Malice case

1. (R v Latimer) D intended to strike a specific person with a belt, but accidentally injured a bystander instead. MR could be transferred to the unintended victim.

2. (R v Pembliton) D threw a stone intending to hit a person but accidentally broke a window instead. MR could not be transferred in this case as the act was of a different nature.

Coincidence of AR & MR definition (AO1)

P must prove D has MR of the offence at the moment of the AR.

• Where AR comes before MR, it may be regarded as a continuing act and so will coincide with any later MR. Where MR comes before AR, there may be a series of linked events so that MR will coincide with a later AR.

AR before MR definition (AO1)

Where the the AR takes place without MR but MR develops later, the courts have regarded D’s conduct as a ‘continuing act’ (Artificial rule to create MR)

AR before MR case

(Fagan v MPC) D accidentally drove onto a police officer's foot and then refused to move, establishing a continuing act.

MR before AR definition (AO1)

Where the MR takes place before the AR, the courts have adopted a different approach of regarding the incident as a series of linked events forming a whole.

MR before AR case

(R v Church) D's actions were deemed to have caused the death of a woman after wrongly believing her to be dead.

No fault & Strict Liability definition (AO1)

Offences which do not require proof of mens rea.

• D may be convicted on proof of voluntary actus reus only i.e: criminal liability for accidental conduct.

Strict Liability cases

(Callow v Tilstone) D was charged with selling contaminated meat despite no intention to do so as he got a vet to examine it beforehand.

(Harrow LBC v Shah) D was convicted for selling lottery tickets to a minor, despite the staff believing the purchaser was of age.

Common law Strict Liability example

Outraging public decency

Common Law Strict liability offence case

(Gibson & Sylveire) D created an art exhibit of a model head with earrings made out of freeze-dried human foetuses to highlight how abortions were casually thought of.

The model was put on in Sylveire’s gallery and both were convicted

Presumption of MR definition (AO1)

The presumption of MR is particularly strong in relation to offences which are ‘truly criminal’

Presumption of MR case

(Sweet v Parsley) D let house to student tenants. Tenants smoked cannabis but D was unaware. D charged with managing premises where cannabis was smoked but found NG.

Exception to Presumption of MR (AO1)

Presumption may be displaced if offence is:

• Regulatory in nature:

• Offence relates to matter of social concern - any activity which is a potential danger to public health, safety or morals.

• Strick liability will require greater public care/vigilance to prevent the commission of an offence

Exception to Presumption of MR case

(Alphacell v Woodward) D discharged pollutants into a river without knowledge of any legal obligations. The court held that strict liability applied, emphasizing public health importance.