Mens Rea Dr. Maris Köpcke Tinturé - Trini Tinturé - … Rea.pdfMens Rea Dr. Maris Köpcke...

1
Mens Rea Dr. Maris Köpcke Tinturé Category Subcategory Objective? Subjective? Intent 'Core meaning' (ends or means) Subjective (Objective can be evidence: Crim.J.Act 1967, s8) 'Virtual certainty' (Moloney, Nedrick, Hancock and Shankland, Woollin, Re A) Objective (inseparable consequence) Subjective ‘Moral elbow room’ (‘entitled to find’): special considerations? (Matthews) Criticism: should be only subjective Recklessness Cunningham (good law) (Stephenson, R v G and R) Objective (unreasonable risk) Subjective Caldwell (no longer good law) (Elliott) Objective (unreasonable risk) 'Middle way'? Objective Good reason for failing to see risk? Subjective broadened to include: 'At the back of his mind' (Parker) Voluntary intoxication Negligence Gross Objective Reasonable for whom? Do D’s characterics, such as age, blindness or hearing impairment, count? (Caldwell was totally objective, hence Elliott) D’s special skills count (Adomako) Ordinary Strict Liability Question 1: Statutory construction? MR presumption (Sweet v Parsley) Defeated if MR reading 'unreasonable': expressly SL or 'necessary implication' (B, K): other sections or statutes 'truly criminal', severity of punishment (but see R v G) prevent serious danger, eg pollution, and specialised business activity (Alphacell, Empress Cars) effectively discourage (Lim Chin Aik) Question 2: If MR, which? (B, K) See below MR regarding circumstance (compare Prince: no MR, ie strict liability, regarding age) MR regarding circumstance Knowledge Positive (and correct) belief that C obtains 'Wilful blindness' (Westminster) Deliberate non-enquiry 'Reckless knowledge' Foresight of a risk that C might obtain Extended by B v DPP to include cases where D has no belief either way (prosecution only needs to prove that D lacks a positive ('honest') belief that C doesn't obtain) Mistake of fact (Morgan, B, K) Positive ('honest') belief that C doesn't obtain: Subjective (= reasonable or unreasonable belief) v Tolson: objective ('reasonable' belief) Note: Morgan remains the standard for mistake of fact, but ironically it’s no longer good law about the crime it was about (sexual offences, after SOA 2003)

Transcript of Mens Rea Dr. Maris Köpcke Tinturé - Trini Tinturé - … Rea.pdfMens Rea Dr. Maris Köpcke...

Page 1: Mens Rea Dr. Maris Köpcke Tinturé - Trini Tinturé - … Rea.pdfMens Rea Dr. Maris Köpcke Tinturé Category Subcategory Objective? Subjective? Intent 'Core meaning' (ends or means)

Mens Rea Dr. Maris Köpcke Tinturé

Category Subcategory Objective? Subjective?

Intent 'Core meaning' (ends or means)

Subjective (Objective can be evidence: Crim.J.Act 1967, s8)

'Virtual certainty' (Moloney, Nedrick, Hancock and Shankland, Woollin, Re A)

Objective (inseparable consequence) Subjective

• ‘Moral elbow room’ (‘entitled to find’): special considerations? (Matthews)

• Criticism: should be only subjective

Recklessness Cunningham (good law) (Stephenson, R v G and R)

Objective (unreasonable risk) Subjective

Caldwell (no longer good law) (Elliott)

Objective (unreasonable risk)

'Middle way'? Objective • Good reason for failing to see risk?

Subjective broadened to include: • 'At the back of his mind' (Parker) • Voluntary intoxication

Negligence Gross Objective • Reasonable for whom? • Do D’s characterics, such as age, blindness or hearing

impairment, count? (Caldwell was totally objective, hence Elliott) • D’s special skills count (Adomako)

Ordinary

Strict Liability

Question 1: Statutory construction?

MR presumption (Sweet v Parsley) Defeated if MR reading 'unreasonable': expressly SL or 'necessary implication' (B, K):

• other sections or statutes • 'truly criminal', severity of punishment (but see R v G) • prevent serious danger, eg pollution, and specialised business

activity (Alphacell, Empress Cars) • effectively discourage (Lim Chin Aik)

Question 2: If MR, which? (B, K)

See below MR regarding circumstance (compare Prince: no MR, ie strict liability, regarding age)

MR regarding circumstance

Knowledge Positive (and correct) belief that C obtains

'Wilful blindness' (Westminster)

Deliberate non-enquiry

'Reckless knowledge' Foresight of a risk that C might obtain • Extended by B v DPP to include cases where D has no belief

either way (prosecution only needs to prove that D lacks a positive ('honest') belief that C doesn't obtain)

Mistake of fact (Morgan, B, K)

Positive ('honest') belief that C doesn't obtain: • Subjective (= reasonable or unreasonable belief) • v Tolson: objective ('reasonable' belief) • Note: Morgan remains the standard for mistake of fact, but

ironically it’s no longer good law about the crime it was about (sexual offences, after SOA 2003)