Mens Rea
Intention
• A result is intended when it is the defendant's purpose to cause it
• Possible exceptions
The result is a virtually certain consequence of the act
The defendant knows that they are virtually certain
• A conditional intention is still an intention
• Multiple intentions are intentions
Direct intention
• Includes ends and means
Ends: eg. D kills V because they hate them
Means: eg. D kills V for inheritance
• Does not include secondary effects
Eg. D kills V because of hatred but they or someone else receives
inheritance as a result
• Focus is on purpose, not motive (eg. Mercy killing is still murder)
Indirect intention
• Where the defendant does not desire the consequences of their actions but the
consequences are virtually certain and the defendant knows that they are
virtually certain
• R v Hyam (1975)
Defendant set fire through ex’s new fiancee’s letterbox with the intent to
scare the fiancée
Fire spread and killed two of the fiancée’s children
D was convicted of murder and appeal was denied
Established that if the defendant knew the consequences were highly
probable → intent is established
• R v Moloney (1985)
Defendant and his stepfather had a good relationship but during a drunken
competition shot and killed the stepfather
The courts accepted the appeal → conviction changed to manslaughter
, Foresight of consequences were to be considered material from which
intent may be inferred
Lord Bridge:
• Was death a natural consequence of the defendant's act?
• Did the defendant foresee that consequence?
• If YES to both → jury should be directed that they may infer
intent but are not bound to infer intent
• R v Hancock & Shankland (1985)
Defendants threw concrete from a bridge with the intent to block the roads
but killed a driver
Held Moloney misleading → overturned conviction
Should take into account degree of probability of the consequence
• R v Nedrick (1986)
Defendant set fire through a letter box → child dies
D was convicted of murder → overturned
Lord Lane CJ: “the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer
the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death was a virtual
certainty as a result of the defendant's actions” and that the defendant
recognized this
• R v Mohan (1976)
Lord James: “no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of
his act or not”
Basic vs specific intent
• Basic intent: offences where either intention or recklessness satisfies mens rea
Manslaughter
Battery
Assault
Rape
Section 20 OAPA
Section 47 OAPA
• Specific intent: offences where intention is necessary to satisfy mens rea
Murder
Theft
, Section 18 OAPA
Criminal damage → Heard (2007)
Actus Reus
Omissions
Where omissions are criminal offences
• Specific statutory and common law offences
Eg. Refusing to provide a breath specimen (Road Traffic Act 1988); failing
to provide legally dependent children with adequate supplies (Children and
Young Persons Act 1933)
• Special relationship to the victim
Whether the victim has a reliance on the defendant (hence whether the
defendant has a responsibility for the victim) determines if there is a duty
of care → whether omission becomes a criminal offence
Where closeness of relationship is not relevant
Stone and Robinson (1977)
Defendants were held to have assumed responsibility of the victim
when they allowed her to stay with them
Victim died of anorexia and negligence of the defendants
Both defendants were convicted of manslaughter, despite only one of
them being related to the victim
Thus, the family relationship itself did not impose any responsibilities
• Special relationship to the harm
R v Miller (1983)
Defendant fell asleep while smoking a cigarette
Woke up and found his mattress on fire → moved next door and went
back to sleep → house catches on fire
Defendant was convicted of arson
Court of Appeal held that the conviction was based on a continuing act
BUT House of Lords held that the defendant's omission to deal with
the fire constituted as actus reus
• Starting of fire created a legal duty “to take measures that lie
within one's power to counteract a danger that one has created”
, • Continuing acts
Where actus reus occurs before mens rea but the defendant intentionally
omits to discontinue the harmful act
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
Act of refusing to remove vehicle was riled as actus reus
• Statutory restrictions → offences that cannot be committed by omission
Where the behavioural element of the actus reus is specified by statute
Eg. Actus reus of rape requires active sexual intercourse with
penetration of the victim (Sexual Offences Act 2003)
BUT if an offence has an unspecified behavioural element, where the actus
reus is primarily based on the consequences of the act → omission could
count as actus reus
Eg. Murder can be committed by omission, where the actus reus
requires causing one's death by another
• Gibbons and Proctor (1919)
• Stone and Robinson (1977)
Causation
Factual vs Legal Causation
Factual causation
• Where defendant's conduct leads to the harm
Rule of thumb: if the defendant's conduct is not a ‘but for’ cause, they
cannot be guilty of a crime
Reasonable exceptions
Eg. Waiter sets knife on table → someone stabs another with the knife
→ waiter is technically a cause but it is unreasonable to convict them
• R v White (1910)
Son puts poison in a glass of wine and gives it to his mother
Mother drinks the wine and dies
BUT medical report says that cause of death was a heart attack and he
poison had no effect
Son is not charged with murder
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper caae. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €12,93. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
