Mens Rea and Actus reus

Hancock v Shankland 1986

D wants to stop Vs car in order to stop him from going to work. so D push's a concrete block from the road, killing the driver

Actus Reus

physical part of the offence, the guilty act
must be voluntary act

Cunningham (1957)

D tore the gas meter from the wall to steal the money. The next door woman was affected by the leaked gas. Charged with sec 23 of Offences against the person's act 1861 for maliciously administering a noxious thing.

Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner(1986)

Fagan was told by police to park on a kerb. While doing that he drove on to the policeman's foot without realising. Policeman pointed out what happened an d asked to move it several time. Later he moved.

Mens Rea

mental element of the crime
could be intentional or taking a risk

Direct intention

-D aims to cause the damage that was inflicted
-D decided to bring on or do the consequence
-motive is irrelevant

Oblique intent

-lesser form of intention
-D aims to cause harm but not that harm tat had occurred

-Foresight of consequences

S.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967

This was the act that first set out the law on indirect intention which explained the D must foresee a result and this is intention. ('natural and probable' test)

essential for a crime

actus reus and mens rea to coincidence

continuing act

Where there is a continuing act for the guilty act and, at some point while that act is still going the defendant has the necessary guilty mind, then the two will coincide and the defendant will be guilty.

Transferred malice

defendant can be guilty if they indented to commit a similar crime but against different victim.

negligence in criminal

failure to meet the standard of the reasonable man
-negligence in statutory offences
-gross negligence-manslaughter

gross negligence

where there has been a duty breached that caused death would have to be serious

subjective recklessness

Where the defendant knows there is a risk of the consequence happening but takes that risk anyway

Mohan (1975) (Direct intent)

A person believes banking in the western world is causing poverty in poor nations. So steals from bank to give to poorer people but has the mens rea for theft

Nedrick(1986)

Poured paraffin through letter box, causing fire in the house in which a child died.
-death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainity and that the defendant appreciated this.

Woollin (1998)

Threw baby towards the pram which was against the wall about 4 feet away. Baby suffered head injuries and died.
-consequence must have been a virtual certainity and the defendant must have realized this.

Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

-The D dropped the victim into the river( 25 feet from a bridge). V told he don't know to swim. They watched in dog paddle to the bank but didn't wait to see him reach. He drowned.
-Intention proved by virtual certainity + no intention to save him

Latimeir (1886)

D aimed a blow with the belt at a man in the pub. The belt bounced of the man and stuck a woman in the face. D was guilty of an assault against the
woman, although he had not meant it.