Intent, intoxication and concurrence

R v Wentworth

Intention includes both direct and oblique intention

R v Crooks; Soles v R

Suspicion is not enough for knowledge (first)
Wilful blindness is (both)

Martin v Police

If total absence of memory then no knowledge

Cameron v R

Recklessness: defendant recognised (subjective) real possibility actions would bring about the prescribed result or prescribed circumstances existed (?) AND regarding the risk, the actions were unreasonable (objective)

Narayan v Police

Doctrine transfers the malice

Chandler v Police

Doctrine of transferred malice does not transform it

R v Kamipeli

Fact of intent not capacity (drunk doesn’t matter)

Sheehan

A drunken intent is still an intent (used in Kamipeli)

Cameron v R

Opens intoxication argument up to courts- obiter

Fagan v MPC

Continuing act doctrine (when actus reus precedes mens rea)

R v Miller

Omissions theory: duty to act that coincided with the mens rea?

Thabo Meli v R

(Preconceived plan only need mens rea at one point in the plan- removed by Kumar)
Only one transaction, insufficient time between two actions (one with mens rea and one without) to be treated seperately

Ramsay

Thabo Meli applies in cases of intentional murder where “it is impossible to divide up a course of conduct into seperate acts”

(Kumar said obiter): Does not apply to recklessness but intention can be possible to say that every action was directed with that intention

R v Kumar

Thabo Meli doesn’t need preconceived plan- question is “one continuos transaction”

R v Kingeke

Mens rea should not be singled out for indivisible series of acts such as ongoing assault

R v McKinnon

If mens rea action still substantial and operative then has concurrence

R v Piri

If risk of death no more than negligible in offender’s eyes then stigma of murder should be withheld; dif to risk so appreciable virtual equivalent of intentional; real risk, substantial risk, something that might well happen