9084 · 2.1.2
Mens rea flashcards
Revision flashcards for Cambridge 9084 Mens rea (syllabus 2.1.2). Flip, recall, then mark a real past-paper question.
Card
Direct intention?
D's aim or purpose is to bring about the result — highest form of mens rea, as defined in R v Mohan.
Card
Oblique intention (Woollin)?
Result virtually certain from D's act AND D appreciates that — jury may find intention.
Card
Cunningham recklessness?
Subjective — D foresees a risk of the result/consequence and goes ahead anyway (R v Cunningham).
Card
Transferred malice?
Mens rea transfers where the same offence type is committed against an unintended victim — e.g. meant to hit A, hit B (R v Latimer).
Card
Coincidence rule?
Actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time — exceptions include the 'continuing act' (Fagan) and the 'one transaction' principle (Thabo Meli).
Card
Recklessness vs negligence?
Recklessness requires subjective awareness of risk; negligence is an objective failure to meet a reasonable standard (rare in criminal law).
Card
What is the two-part test for oblique intention from *R v Woollin*?
1. Was the prohibited consequence a virtual certainty of the defendant's actions? 2. Did the defendant appreciate that it was a virtual certainty? If yes to both, the jury may find intention.
Card
Define subjective recklessness as established in *R v G and another*.
A person acts recklessly with respect to a result when they are aware of a risk that it will occur, and it is, in the circumstances known to them, unreasonable to take that risk.
Card
What is the 'continuing act' doctrine in relation to the coincidence rule?
A principle from *Fagan v MPC* where if a defendant develops the mens rea at any point during an ongoing actus reus, the two elements are considered to coincide in time.
Card
How does negligence differ from intention and recklessness?
Negligence is judged by an objective 'reasonable person' standard and does not require the defendant to have foreseen any risk. Intention and recklessness are subjective states of mind where the defendant desires the outcome or foresees a risk of it.
Card
What is the legal principle from *Thabo Meli v R*?
The 'one transaction' principle. Where a series of acts are part of a single plan, the mens rea present at any point during that transaction can be combined with the actus reus to establish liability.
Card
What is the limit of the transferred malice doctrine?
The mens rea for one type of offence cannot be transferred to convict for a different type of offence. For example, intent to harm a person cannot be transferred to property damage (*R v Pembliton*).
Card
How did *R v Hancock and Shankland* (1986) modify the test for oblique intention?
It stated that the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it was foreseen, and if foreseen, the more likely it was intended. It linked probability to the inference of intention.
Card
What is the test for gross negligence manslaughter from *R v Adomako*?
The jury must consider whether the defendant's conduct was so bad in all the circumstances, having regard to the risk of death involved, as to amount to a criminal act or omission.