Question
click below
click below
Question
Normal Size Small Size show me how
mens rea Gosforth
mens rea cases Criminal Law G153
Question | Answer |
---|---|
Mohan (1975) | (mens rea) Intention is 'a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence'. Motive not relevant |
Calhaem | (direct intent) Majority of criminal cases have direct intent. D intends to bring about prohibited consequence. AO2 is this just common sense? |
Moloney | (oblique intent) D shot and killed stepfather in a drunken game HOL: foresight of consequences is not intention itself. It is only evidence of intention. Failed to correctly apply s.8 CJA 1967 |
Hancock & Shankland | (oblique intent) Miners prevent another going to work, taxi driver was killed COA/HOL quashed convictions. |
Moloney | guidelines are unsafe failed to use the s.8 word "probable" |
Nedrick | (oblique intent) D poured paraffin through V's letterbox, child in house died in fire COA: Jury 'infer' intention if: Consequence is a virtual certainty & D realised this (how probable was consequence & did D forsee it?) |
Woollin (1998) | (oblique intent) Father threw 3month old baby at pram which killed baby HOL: Consequence (e.g. death or serious bodily harm) must be a virtual certainty & D realised this. Jury 'find' intention |
Re A (conjoined twins) (2000) | (oblique intent) Docs wanted to operate on conjoined twins but knew this would kill weaker twin COA thought Woolin meant foresight of consequences IS intention |
Matthews and Alleyne (2003) | (oblique intent) D's dropped V from bridge into river knowing he could not swim - he died COA: Foresight of consequences and virtual certainty of death/serious bodily harm is not intention in itself, just evidence of intent |
s.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 | A court/jury can infer intention where D foresaw result of his actions as natural and probable consequence This is a subjective test that makes clear foresight of consequences is only part of evidence for intention |
Cunningham (1957) (recklessness) | D tore gas meter seeped into house next door affecting woman inside. Subjective test for recklessness. D must realise there is a risk of the consequences occuring and decide to take risk |
Lidar (2000) | (recklessness) Doorman dragged from car by D driving off - V died of injuries. Can be guilty of involuntary manslaughter if reckless. D must have forseen high probable risk of serious injury or death. AO2 Adomako is this still law? |
MPC v Caldwell (1981) | (recklessness) D got drunk and set fire to a hotel - convicted of arson HOL: Introduced objective test where 1) D realises risk and 2) D has not thought about the possibility of risk |
G & another (2003) | (recklessness) 2 young boys set fire to newspapers outside shop thinking would go out, caused £1m damage HOL quashed conviction. Overruled Caldwell. D must be aware of the risk- subjective test (approved draft Criminal Code test) |
Draft Criminal Code 1989 | D acts recklessly when he (1) is aware of a risk (2) knows it is unreasonable to take risk |
Adomako | Doctor in surgery Gross negligence manslaughter |
Sweet v Parsley | (mens rea, knowledge) Woman rented out farmhouse - did not know her tenants were smoking cannabis there. HOL: Knowledge- knowledge is required for D to be guilty |
Latimer | (mens rea, transferred malice) D aimed a belt at a man in pub but belt struck woman instead - assault Transferred malice - D is guilty if he intended a similar crime but on a different victim |
Thabo Meli | (mens rea, coincidence of actus reus and mens rea) D attacked man and threw over cliff - V died of exposure Ds guilty as actus reus and mens rea were combined in a series of acts |
Fagan v MPC | (mens rea, coincidence of actus reus and mens rea) D drove on policeman's foot refused to move car initially COA: actus reus was still continuing so was present with mens rea together |