Mens Rea
Based on your research, you understand that restricted behaviour typically requires a negative mindset. The definition of an offence specifies the necessary mens rea for the defendant. This lecture emphasises the importance of linking any discussion of mens rea to a specific conduct or consequence relevant to the offence at hand. Mens rea should never be stated abstractly. To be convicted of criminal damage, the offender must either intend to destroy or be reckless about damaging another's property. This lecture will focus on two types of mens rea: intention and recklessness.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
understand the meaning of intention;
understand the concept of intention in the context of murder;
recognise the situations in which guidance will be given to a jury as to the meaning of intention and identify the shape that such guidance would take;
understand the test of Cunningham recklessness;
understand the test of recklessness in R v G;
understand the concept of negligence within the context of criminal law;
understand the concept of transferred malice;
understand the need for coincidence of actus rea and mens rea, and
understand the role of mistake in mens rea.
Key Cases
Intention
R v Calhaem [1985] 1 QB 808
R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025
Hyam v DPP [1974] 2 All ER 41
R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] 1 All ER 641
R v Nedrick [1986] 3 All ER 1
R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103
Chandler v DPP[1964] AC 763
Recklessness
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
R v G and Another[2003] UKHL 50
Transferred Malice
R v Mitchell [1983] 2 All ER 427
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
R v Thabo Meli and others [1954] 1 All ER 373
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1QB 439
Meli v R [1954] 1 All ER 373 (South Africa)
R v Masilela(1968) (2) SA 558
Mistake
R v Smith [1974] 1 All ER 632
Based on your research, you understand that restricted behaviour typically requires a negative mindset. The definition of an offence specifies the necessary mens rea for the defendant. This lecture emphasises the importance of linking any discussion of mens rea to a specific conduct or consequence relevant to the offence at hand. Mens rea should never be stated abstractly. To be convicted of criminal damage, the offender must either intend to destroy or be reckless about damaging another's property. This lecture will focus on two types of mens rea: intention and recklessness.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
understand the meaning of intention;
understand the concept of intention in the context of murder;
recognise the situations in which guidance will be given to a jury as to the meaning of intention and identify the shape that such guidance would take;
understand the test of Cunningham recklessness;
understand the test of recklessness in R v G;
understand the concept of negligence within the context of criminal law;
understand the concept of transferred malice;
understand the need for coincidence of actus rea and mens rea, and
understand the role of mistake in mens rea.
Key Cases
Intention
R v Calhaem [1985] 1 QB 808
R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025
Hyam v DPP [1974] 2 All ER 41
R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] 1 All ER 641
R v Nedrick [1986] 3 All ER 1
R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103
Chandler v DPP[1964] AC 763
Recklessness
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
R v G and Another[2003] UKHL 50
Transferred Malice
R v Mitchell [1983] 2 All ER 427
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
R v Thabo Meli and others [1954] 1 All ER 373
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1QB 439
Meli v R [1954] 1 All ER 373 (South Africa)
R v Masilela(1968) (2) SA 558
Mistake
R v Smith [1974] 1 All ER 632
Based on your research, you understand that restricted behaviour typically requires a negative mindset. The definition of an offence specifies the necessary mens rea for the defendant. This lecture emphasises the importance of linking any discussion of mens rea to a specific conduct or consequence relevant to the offence at hand. Mens rea should never be stated abstractly. To be convicted of criminal damage, the offender must either intend to destroy or be reckless about damaging another's property. This lecture will focus on two types of mens rea: intention and recklessness.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
understand the meaning of intention;
understand the concept of intention in the context of murder;
recognise the situations in which guidance will be given to a jury as to the meaning of intention and identify the shape that such guidance would take;
understand the test of Cunningham recklessness;
understand the test of recklessness in R v G;
understand the concept of negligence within the context of criminal law;
understand the concept of transferred malice;
understand the need for coincidence of actus rea and mens rea, and
understand the role of mistake in mens rea.
Key Cases
Intention
R v Calhaem [1985] 1 QB 808
R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025
Hyam v DPP [1974] 2 All ER 41
R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] 1 All ER 641
R v Nedrick [1986] 3 All ER 1
R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103
Chandler v DPP[1964] AC 763
Recklessness
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
R v G and Another[2003] UKHL 50
Transferred Malice
R v Mitchell [1983] 2 All ER 427
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea
R v Thabo Meli and others [1954] 1 All ER 373
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1QB 439
Meli v R [1954] 1 All ER 373 (South Africa)
R v Masilela(1968) (2) SA 558
Mistake
R v Smith [1974] 1 All ER 632