Criminal Law Mens Rea

Front 1

Mens Rea

Back 1

see s8 CJA 1967
main types-
intention
subjective recklessness

Front 2

Moloney

Back 2

intent could be inferred where the D foresaw the consequences as a natural consequence

Front 3

Hyam

Back 3

MR for murder is satisfied if D knew death or serious harm was highly probable

Front 4

Hancock & Shankland

Back 4

greater probability of a consequence = greater possibility it was foreseen and intended

Front 5

Nedrick

Back 5

foresight of a virtual certainty is the intention test

Front 6

Woollin

Back 6

a result foreseen as virtually certain is an intended result

Front 7

Re A

Back 7

if d foresaw the death of V was virtually certain, he intended to kill

Front 8

Matthews & Alleyne

Back 8

foresight of a consequence is merely evidence from which the jury can make an inference of intent

Front 9

R v G

Back 9

D is reckless if
-a circumstance if he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist
-a result if he is aware of a risk that it will occur
-and nevertheless takes that risk even though he knows its unjustifiable

Front 10

Stephenson

Back 10

D is not reckless if he has not foreseen a risk

Front 11

Caldwell

Back 11

objective recklessness-overruled Cunningham, but later overruled by R vG

Front 12

Latimer

Back 12

D intended to wound X but wounds Y, found guilty

Front 13

Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 1994

Back 13

malice can only be transferred to someone in existence at the time

Front 14

Pembliton

Back 14

Transferred malice only applies where the actus reus and mens rea are for the same offence