Mens rea — practice questions

Issue: Whether Carla has intention or recklessness for criminal damage (s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971 — requires intention or recklessness as to damage).

Direct intention: Carla's aim was to scare, not destroy the shed — no direct intent to damage property unless shed destruction was her purpose.

Oblique intention (Woollin): Was destruction virtually certain and did Carla appreciate this? Setting fire near a wooden fence/shed — strong argument destruction was virtually certain (R v Woollin direction to jury). If Carla realised, jury may find intention.

Cunningham recklessness: Even without intention, liable if she foresaw a risk of property damage and proceeded anyway (R v Cunningham). Fire near structures creates an obvious risk; Carla likely subjectively reckless.

Conclusion: Recklessness is established at a minimum; oblique intention is arguable if virtual certainty can be proven on the facts. Carla is likely liable for criminal damage.

Exam tip: Always discuss intention (direct then oblique) before recklessness — higher mens rea first.

1. Duty of Care: As a site manager, Dave owes a clear duty of care to his employees, including Vince, to provide a safe working environment. This is an established duty (R v Adomako).
2. Breach of Duty: Dave breached this duty. The regulations state a trench over 1.5m deep must be reinforced. Dave's trench was 3m deep (a 100% increase over the safety threshold). Failing to reinforce it was a clear and serious breach.
3. Causation: The breach (failure to reinforce) directly caused the trench to collapse, which in turn caused Vince's death. Factual ('but for' the breach, Vince would not have died) and legal causation are both established.
4. Gross Negligence (Mens Rea element): The key issue is whether the breach was 'gross'. The Adomako test asks if the defendant's conduct was so bad in all the circumstances as to be considered criminal by the jury.
   • Risk of Death: The risk of death or serious injury from a 3-metre deep, unreinforced trench collapsing is obvious and significant.
   • Calculation & Disregard: Dave made a conscious decision to ignore a specific safety rule. He weighed the cost (£2,000) and time (2 days) against the worker's safety. This disregard for a known and serious risk, quantified by the fact the trench was double the safe depth (3m vs 1.5m), for a relatively minor financial saving, is strong evidence of gross negligence.
5. Conclusion: Dave's conduct likely satisfies the Adomako test. The breach was not a mere mistake but a deliberate disregard for a known, life-threatening risk. A jury would likely find him guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.