W201 Test - Mental States

Front 1

Wanting something/setting out to achieve it/having something as your aim ?

Back 1

Direct intent

Front 2

Motive is...

Back 2

... Irrelevant to Criminal liability

Front 3

Indirect intent - 1

Back 3

Consequence virtually certain to occur from act/omission ?

Front 4

Indirect intent - 2

Back 4

Did D foresee the occurrence of consequence as virtually certain? ?

Front 5

Soldier and stepdad after heavy drinking, challenge to load, draw, fire a shotgun quickest. Stepdad shot and killed

Back 5

R v Moloney (1985)

Front 6

Case where appellants charged with murder of taxi driver killed taking a miner to work by pushing concrete post and block over a 3 Lane highway onto it below ?

Back 6

R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Front 7

What was the result of Hancock ?

Back 7

CA quashed murder, subbed manslaughter

Front 8

Crown appealed to Lords in Hancock - outcome ?

Back 8

Dismissed. 'Natural consequences' needed amplification

Front 9

In Hancock, claim of defendants ?

Back 9

Had only intended to block the road and frighten not kill the victim

Front 10

Poured paraffin through woman's letterbox and lit. Child died in fire, said he only wanted to frighten the woman not kill anyone

Back 10

R v Nedrick (1986)

Front 11

Because of Nedrick 86, test for oblique intention is now

Back 11

Virtually certain occurrence as consequence of actions; believe of D foresight of the consequence as virtually certain

Front 12

Jury do not HAVE to ..... even if Nedrick test conditions both met

Back 12

Infer intent

Front 13

Case of frustrated father losing temper throwing 3m old son onto heard surface, skull fracture and death

Back 13

R v Woollin (1999)

Front 14

Woollin 1999 important because ?

Back 14

Final HL approval of Nedrick 1986

Front 15

But how did Woollin clarify the direction from Nedrick n?

Back 15

Substitution of 'infer' with 'find' I.e. jury can find intent if consequence foreseen as virtual certainty

Front 16

What case did CA refuse to equate foresight of consequences as virtually certain with intention I.e that these are guidelines not absolutes for the jury ?

Back 16

R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Front 17

Ulterior intent is what ?

Back 17

An 'extra' element of MR necessary to find against defendant to secure conviction cf burglary

Front 18

For specific intent crimes the MR must be

Back 18

Intention only (recklessness not enough)

Front 19

If not specific intent what sort of intent ?

Back 19

Basic

Front 20

Example of specific intent crime ?

Back 20

Murder

Front 21

Case where gas meter stolen from cellar fracturing gas pipe and victim ended up inhaling whilst asleep in bed ?

Back 21

R v Cunningham (1957)

Front 22

What offence applied in Cunningham ?

Back 22

S23 offences against the person 1861 - unlawfully and maliciously causing the taking of a noxious thing so as to thereby endanger life

Front 23

Cunningham 1957 was the main authority for ?

Back 23

Subjective recklessness

Front 24

Judge who oversaw Cunningham ?

Back 24

Byrne J

Front 25

The meaning of maliciousness was decided in Cunningham as being the same as ?

Back 25

That defined by Prof Kenny in 1902

Front 26

From Cunningham malice is what ?

Back 26

I intention to do the particular harm or ii) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not

Front 27

Recklessness from Cunningham ?

Back 27

Proof that D foresaw the risk and went on to take it in spite of such foresight unjustifiably

Front 28

Case involving a schizo who went into a haystack and lit a fire

Back 28

R v Stephenson (1979)

Front 29

Stephenson was charged under

Back 29

S1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Front 30

What happened in CA for Stephenson 1979

Back 30

Lane LJ quashed conviction

Front 31

Case which changed recklessness to an objective standard, overruling Stephenson ?

Back 31

MPC v Caldwell (1982) [House of Lords]

Front 32

Limb 2 of Caldwell unreasonableness ?

Back 32

Failed to give any thought to the risk of damage or destruction occurring

Front 33

Caldwell finally overruled by Lord Bingham in which HL case ?

Back 33

R v G (2004)

Front 34

Criminal damage act 1971 1(1)

Back 34

Destruction or damage of property without lawful excuse belonging to another intending this destruction of damage or being reckless as to causing it

Front 35

Criminal damage act 1971 s1(2)

Back 35

Destruction or damage of any property belonging to self or another without lawful excuse with intent or recklessness to destroy or damage and by this destruction/damage intending to endanger life of another or recklessness as to endangerment

Front 36

Criminal damage act s1(3)

Back 36

Criminal damage as per (1) or (2) but by fire = charged as arson

Front 37

Arson conviction on indictment liable to imprisonment for life via

Back 37

S4(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Front 38

Facts of R v G (2004)

Back 38

Boys 11&12 setting fire to newspapers under a wheelie bin outside a coop. Fire spread and caused 1m damage

Front 39

Facts of Caldwell 1982

Back 39

Disgruntled drunken hotel worker with grievance against owner set fire to hotel, was charged with arson

Front 40

14 yr old remedial girl setting shed alight by lighting white spirit on the floor - Caldwell regrettably applied in CA following pros appeal

Back 40

Elliott v C (1983)

Front 41

Transferred malice ?

Back 41

Crime committed such that MR against intended victim transfers to the AR against another unintended victim

Front 42

Case authority for transferred malice ?

Back 42

R v Latimer (1886)

Front 43

Facts of Latimer 1886

Back 43

Blow aimed at man outside a pub with belt but glanced of and struck another. S20 OAPA 1861

Front 44

Condition for doctrine of transferred malice to hold ?

Back 44

Same AR for crime committed as that D originally had in mind

Front 45

Example of transferred malice not applying ?

Back 45

Throw a stone at someone, misses and breaks a window

Front 46

Case authority for transferred malice not allowing for crime because of differing MR ?

Back 46

R v Pembilton (1874)

Front 47

Meaning of knowledge with regards to property belonging to another - 1 ?

Back 47

D realised that this was the case

Front 48

Meaning of knowledge with regards to property belonging to another - 2 ?

Back 48

D realised there was an overwhelming probability that this was the case

Front 49

CDA 1971 5(2)(a) lawful excuse 1

Back 49

Belief that had consent of person entitled to give permission for damage caused

Front 50

CDA 1971 5(2)(a) lawful excuse 2

Back 50

Belief in consent from person who thought entitled to give permission for damage to be caused (mistaken owner)

Front 51

CDA 1971 5(2)(a) lawful excuse 3

Back 51

Belief that would have had consent for damage to be caused by entitled person if they had known of damage and circumstances

Front 52

CDA 1971 5(2)(a) lawful excuse 4

Back 52

Belief that would have had consent of person thought entitled to give permission had they known of damage and circumstances

Front 53

CDA 1971 5(2)(b) lawful excuse

Back 53

Belief that property (own or another's) in immediate need of protection AND means of protection adopted REASONABLE having regards to all the circumstances

Front 54

CDA 1971 5(3) states

Back 54

Belief (of consent or need to protect property) does not have to be reasonable as long as it is honestly held