Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove Ads
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards




share
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

mens rea Gosforth

mens rea cases Criminal Law G153

QuestionAnswer
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
Created by: Rich Whitaker