Mens Rea Revision 1 Intention PDF

*Clearly illustrate* the law regarding to oblique intention with reference to case law *Mens Rea from gives to lowest*: - Intention - Recklessness - Negligence (just mention, not in detail. Eg. There are 3 types of Mens Rea) - Mohan (1975) Intention is to bring about, in so far as...

*Clearly illustrate* the law regarding to oblique intention with reference to case law *Mens Rea from gives to lowest*: - Intention - Recklessness - Negligence (just mention, not in detail. Eg. There are 3 types of Mens Rea) - Mohan (1975) Intention is to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, (the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that consequences of his act or not - Intention is what they intended to do, and motive is the reason behind it, the why *Direct intention* - The defendant wants a result and carries out an act to achieve it -- easier to prove - The highest form of Mens Rea *Indirect / oblique intention* - The defendant doesn't want the result that occurs but realises that in acting as he does that there is a possibility that it will happen. ***-Indirect intention timeline -*** *Hyam -v- DPP (1975)* He wanted to frighten mrs booth y setting fire to a newspaper and putting it through the letterbox -- just wanted to scare her but burnt the house down and killed her and her children. - This type of intention has been built up through case law largely based round the CJA 1967 s.8 1. ***Maloney (1985)*** Defendant and stepfather were very drunk.had a race to see who could load a shotgun the fastest. The stepfather dared him yo pull the trigger and he did. (He did not intend for that to be the outcome). - HoL held that foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention and not the intention itself. -- there is only n evidence of intention (not direct intent) *Questions asked in Maloney:* - Was the death or really serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant's act? AND - Did the defendant foresee that the consequence as being a natural result of his act? Lord Bridge used the word 'natural' and didn't refer to the word 'probable' as defined in the CJA 1967 s.8 This was adapted in: 2. ***Hancock & Shankland (1986)*** Defendants were striking miners. They wanted to stop other miners from going to work so pushed a concrete block off a bridge onto the road. The bock hit the front of a car and killer the driver Guidelines from Hancock & Shankland (1986) Lord Scarman stated that the Maloney guidelines were unsafe and misleading s probability was not mentioned. 3. ***Nedrick (1986)*** The defendant poured paraffin through a woman's letterbox and set it alight. A child died in the fire. Originally convicted of murder but this was reduced to manslaughter on appeal. The judge tried to simplify the law in the two pervious cases and said 2 questions that the jury need to ask: - How probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendant\'s voluntary act? AND - Did the defendant foresee that consequence? The jury are not allowed to infer the necessary intention unless they foresaw death or serious bodily harm as a virtual certainty (due to the actus reus) and they knew it. 4. ***Woolin (1998)*** The defendant threw his 3-month-old baby towards the pram which was by the wall. The baby suffered head injuries and died. The court dismissed the 2 questions from Nedrick but used the model direction changing the word 'infer' to 'find' as they felt this would clarify the law. 5. ***Matthew & Alleyne (2003)*** Defendants dropped the victim 25 feet off a bridge into a river despite him telling them that he couldn't swim. If the jury think/decide that the individual/defendant foresaw that death, or serious injury was a virtual certainty then they can FIND intention (but they don't have to, its evidence of intention).