Here are some case cards to help you remember the key cases we've covered: R v Cunningham (1957) - Established the meaning of recklessness as taking an unjustifiable risk - Risk must be obvious and serious R v Caldwell (1981) - Expanded recklessness to include situations where D did not think about risk - Risk just needs to be obvious - Two situations: 1) D realised risk and went ahead 2) D did not think about risk R v G and R (2003) - Confirmed the Caldwell test for recklessness - Ask whether D realised there was a risk and went ahead anyway R v Latimer (1885) - Establ

1. Elements of Criminal Law
Mens
Rea
Miss Hart G153
Criminal Law 2012-13

2. Starter:
All of these are cases we considered at AS and will look at in
detail here. Can you name them or their facts?

3. So why’s the mind so important?
Well usually because it’s the thing that
turns an innocent action into a guilty one!
Can we infer mens rea from an action?
Which of these situations could you infer a mens rea in?

4. How much guilt does the mind need?
...It depends on the crime!
…and some even need more than Generally speaking, the more serious
one element! the crime, the ‘higher’ the level of
mens rea
“Dishonestly appropriate Murder Manslaughter
property belonging to
another with the
intention to permanently
deprive the other of it”
s.1 Theft Act 1968

5. Motive?
R v Steane 1947
“A man is taken to intend the
natural consequences of his
acts…but the motive of a man’s
act and his intention in doing
the act are, in law, different
things”
Why might motive still be relevant in a
criminal court?

6. Types of Mens Rea:
Intention
Specific Direct
aka express
Wait until we look at
intoxication
Basic
for this section! Oblique
aka indirect

7. How do we prove intention?
Foresight of Consequences
For each of the following scenarios, decide how likely it is and put the
number in the box!
Impossible Unlikely Possible? Probable Highly Virtually Certain
Probable Certain
1. A man fires a shotgun out of the window 5. A man fires a shotgun into the air on the
of a remote farmhouse moon (no other astronauts around)
2. A man fires a shotgun which he is holding 6. A man fires a shotgun at the head of
directly at the head of his victim someone stood in his doorway.
3. A man fires a shotgun out of the window 7. A man fires a shotgun at a bus queue six
of a shop in the high street foot away.
4. A man fires a shotgun in the direction of
a bus queue twenty feet away
Now decide at what point you think they should be liable for the murder of V
(in other words when might we decide that they have intended the consequences)

8. Intention Type One:
Direct Intent
You both foresee and intend the consequence which occurs.
R v Mohan 1975
Have you understood?
Which of the following has
a direct intent?
 I point a gun and pull the trigger
 I set fire, intending to scare, and
someone dies
“a decision to bring about, in so far as
 I say “I’m going to kill you” and
it lies within the accused power( the
then put my hands round your
prohibited consequence), no matter
throat.
whether the accused desired that
 I put my hands up and walk
consequence of his act or not”
towards you.

9. Intention Type Two:
Oblique Intent
Means?
D intends one consequence (e.g. arson) but another occurs (e.g. murder). Clearly we
can’t say that he has a direct intent to kill...
But does he still legally intend the consequences?
Should he have forseen them?
Is he still legally liable for them?
What if I am sick of a pupil and decide to blow up E52, knowing that the
student will be in there during lesson time. The classroom blows up, killing the
rest of the class as well
What if I phone the police with
Do I intend to kill the others?
a warning?

10. Why’s oblique intent so
important?
It’s the difference between a
conviction for murder and one
for manslaughter.

11. Foresight of Consequences
Why was there a problem?
DPP v Smith 1961 1. Why was this outcome unfair
to Mr Smith?
2. Why could the House of Lords
not simply just change their
minds and change the law?

12. The Response?
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an
offence:
a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a
result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and
probable consequence of those actions: but
b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by
reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences as appear
proper in the circumstances.

13. Development of the test on Foresight of Consequences [1]
Hyam v DPP 1975
Decision:
Critical Comment:

14. Development of the test on Foresight of Consequences [2]
R v Moloney 1985
AO2 Assessment
Two important sections to this decision:
1. What has Lord Bridge forgotten?
1. Foresight of consequences are only
evidence of intention.
2. Bridge LJ set down a two stage test (to
decide whether consequences were
foreseen) to be put before juries:
2. Should oblique intent have even
a) Was death or really serious injury been an issue here?
a natural consequence of the
defendant’s act? And
a) Did D foresee that consequence
as being a natural result of his
act?

15. Development of the test on Foresight of Consequences [3]
Hancock & Shankland 1986 1. What did the court do to the
decision in Moloney?
2. What was the decision here?
“the greater the probability of a
consequence the more likely it is that
the consequence was foreseen and
that if that consequence was foreseen
the greater the probability is that
consequence was also intended.

16. Development of the test on Foresight of Consequences [4]
R v Nedrick 1986 1. What do you notice about the two
branches of this test?
2. How might this have changed the
outcome for D in Hyam v DPP?
3. Why might the word ‘infer’ be
important here?

17. Development of the test on Foresight of Consequences [5]
What has the House of Lords to say on the subject?
R v Woollin 1998

18. Development of the test on Foresight of Consequences [6]
The final word?
R v Matthews & Alleyne
“the law has not yet reached a
definition of intent in murder in
terms of appreciation of a virtual
certainty…however, we think that,
once what is required is an
appreciation of virtual certainty of
death, and not some lesser
foresight of merely probable
consequences, there is very little to
choose between a rule of evidence
and one of substantive law.”

19. Applying the law
Look at the following scenario:
is Bob guilty of murder?
Bob is a member of Chocolate Only, a
group which believes that people
should only be eating chocolate. To
get publicity for his cause, he plants a
bomb in Buckingham Palace. He
phones the police to let them know
that it will explode in 15 minutes.
The operator, Susie, mishears and
thinks he says 50 minutes.
They evacuate the Palace, and after
15 minutes, Jeremy the bomb
disposal expert goes in. The bomb
explodes, killing Jeremy.

20. Starter:
Match the terms to their definition?
1. A failure to do something, which doesn’t
A Direct Intent normally bring criminal liability
B Omission 2. A true desire to bring about the consequence
3. A crime where the outcome is the action
C Mens Rea prohibited
4. Sometimes known as the fault element which
D Consequence Crime often turns an innocent act into a guilty one.
5. A crime where D is liable in spite of having no
E State of Affairs Crime voluntary actus reus or mens rea.

21. Introduction:
Have you got oblique intent?
Can you match up the
cards?
Each one has a clue, and
the ratio.
Can you put them in the
correct chronological
order?
NO HANDOUTS!

22. Summarise the development!
Task:
Now use these are your own
understanding to complete the
table on page 14
*These don’t match!*

23. To Sum up…
1. What degree of foresight is
enough?
2. Is foresight of consequences
intention, or only evidence of
intention?

24. How are the essays marked?
AO1 A2CRIM AO2 A2 CRIM
LEVEL 5 Wide-ranging, accurate, detailed Ability to identify correctly the relevant and important
knowledge with a clear and confident 21-25 points of criticism, showing good understanding of 17-20
understanding of the relevant concepts and current debate and proposals for reform, or to identify
principles. Where appropriate, candidates will be all of the relevant points of law in issue. A high level of
able to elaborate with wide citation of relevant ability to develop arguments and reach a cogent, logical
statutes and case law and well-informed conclusion.
Ability to identify and analyse issues central to the
LEVEL 4 Good, well-developed knowledge with a 16-20 question, showing some understanding of current 13-16
clear understanding of the relevant concepts and debate and proposals for reform, or to identify most of
principles. Where appropriate, candidates will be the relevant points of law in issue. Ability to develop
able to elaborate by good citation to relevant clear arguments and reach a sensible and informed
statutes and case-law. conclusion.
LEVEL 3 Adequate knowledge showing reasonable Ability to analyse most of the more obvious points
understanding of the relevant concepts and 11-15 central to the question or to identify the main points of 9-12
principles. Where appropriate, candidates will be law in issue. Ability to develop arguments and reach a
able to elaborate with some citation of relevant conclusion.
statutes and case-law.
LEVEL 2Limited knowledge showing general Ability to explain some of the more obvious points
understanding of the relevant concepts and 6-10 central to the question or to identify some of the points 5-8
principles. There will be some elaboration of the of law in issue. A limited ability to produce arguments
principles, and where appropriate with limited based on their material but without a clear focus or
reference to relevant statutes and case-law. conclusion.
LEVEL 1 Very limited knowledge of the basic Ability to explain at least one of the simpler points
concepts and principles. There will be limited points 1-5 central to the question or to identify at least one of the 1-4
of detail, but accurate citation of relevant statutes points of law in issue. The approach may be uncritical
and case-law will not be expected. and/or unselective.

25. Mark this one!
Mark the AO1 and AO2 in the essay
(use the margin to help you)
Then look at the grade descriptors.
Which band do they sound like?
Finally:
1. Pick one section you think is
particularly strong and explain
why
2. Highlight one area you think
could be improved and say why.

26. Mens Rea Type Two:
Recklessness
Meaning:
The conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk
R v Cunningham 1957

27. So, that all seems straightforward…
… so guess what happens now!
R v Caldwell 1981
The court decided that What are the
liability through
recklessness could occur in
implications of
two situations: this decision?
1. D realised the risk and
went ahead; or
2. D had not thought about
the possibility of any
risk but went ahead

28. In your pairs, look at the statement you
have been given and explain your point of
criticism (the why)
Point Explanation
This has changed the test for
recklessness completely.
It is too general and doesn’t take
account of D’s characteristics
It has been expanded to other
offences such as manslaughter
The reasonable man is always
reasonable.
It makes the law unclear for both
the courts and the defendants.
It reduces the amount of risk D
needs to foresee.

29. How bad could the … the solution?
Caldwell decision get?
Elliot v C 1983 R v G&R 2003
Did D realise that
there was a risk and
go ahead anyway?

30. Starter…
Find the
cases!
There are 13 cases or
parts of cases in here…
can you find them and
sort them out into the
different mens rea

31. Starter…
Find the
cases!
There are 13 cases or
parts of cases in here…
can you find them and
sort them out into the
different mens rea

32. Transferred Malice
Means: D’s Malice is transferred
from the intended victim
to the actual victim.
D intends to
hit V….
…but misses
and hits X
Transferred malice is the doctrine
which explains why D is liable for the
harm to X!

33. Classic Example:
R v Latimer
What problems
can you spot
with this
approach?
Modern Example:
R v Mitchell

34. Limitations
Same Offence Number of Transfer Times?
R v Pemblition AG’s Ref No 3 of
“The doctrine of transferred
1994 (1997)
malice was inapplicable where the
defendant's intention had not A double transfer is
been to cause the type of harm a step too far
that actually occurred.”

35. Coincidence
The AR & the MR must both be present at the same
time for D to be liable.
R v Church
D was liable as the AR
continued on… and on… so even
though the that the MR was
complete, it continued too!

36. Series of Acts
(a different way to describe the same thing!)
Le Brun
D punched his He dragged She hit her Is he liable for
wife on the her away to head on the her
chin, knocking hide her pavement & manslaughter?
her died as a
unconscious result
Thabo-Meli v R

37. And finally…
Continuing Act
In continuing act, if D
develops MR at any point Fagan v MPC 1969
before the AR is complete,
then D will be liable. 1.What are the facts of the
case?
2.Was Fagan convicted or did he
An example: lose his appeal?
R v Kaitamaki 1985 3.What offence was he charged
with?
D had sex with V during
which he realised that she 4.What was the ‘crucial question’
did not consent & then in this case?
continued.
5.Did D commit an act or an
omission?
6.Do you agree with the outcome
of the case? Why/why not?

38. Finally :
To demonstrate your understanding of
everything that might affect D’s liability…
complete the dominoes!

39. Remembering cases..
Case Cards!