Seminar 5 - Criminal -SW202 - Mens Rea by Claire Turner

3. With the aim of causing economic disruption, Debbie planted a bomb in the centre of Nottingham timed to explode at 11.00 a.m. She telephoned a warning to the local newspaper at 10.00 a.m. The police evacuated the centre but the bomb exploded at 10.45 a.m. Vincenzo, a police officer, was killed in the explosion Debbie is on trial for murder. The mens rea for murder is ‘intention to kill or intention to cause serious bodily harm’.

claire43 — 2022-10-24 20:42:11 UTC

2. Dayo throws their 6-month-old baby out of the second floor window of their house in an attempt to save the baby from a housefire. Dayo is charged with murder. The mens rea of murder is intent to kill or intent to cause serious harm. At trial, Dayo accepts that they caused the baby’s death, but argues they did not intend to kill or to cause serious harm to the baby.

claire43 — 2022-10-24 20:42:46 UTC

a. Will the judge direct the jury on the meaning of intention and, if so, what direction will the judge give?

claire43 — 2022-10-24 20:52:43 UTC

Was death or serious injury a virtual certainty when Debbie planted the bomb in Nottingham City Centre planned to go off at 11am after phoning a warning a warning to the newspaper at 10am?

b. Do you think the jury will decide that Debbie intended to kill or cause grevious (serious) bodily harm?

claire43 — 2022-10-24 20:52:50 UTC

Prosecution

1) Planted in a busy city centre

2) An hour is insufficient

3) Phoned local newspaper rather than police

4) Mid morning - when many people will be around. If she wanted purely economic disruption she should have planted in the middle of the night.

Defence

1) She thought the warning would be sufficient

c. If they do decide this, does Debbie have the mens rea for murder?

claire43 — 2022-10-24 20:53:03 UTC

1. Explain, by reference to the facts and judgments in Woollin and/or Mathews and Alleyne what the difference between direct intention and indirect/oblique intention is in criminal law. Ensure that you use a quote from the judgment of one (or both) of these cases to justify your answer.

claire43 — 2022-10-25 07:45:32 UTC

a. Did Dayo directly intend to kill or cause serious harm to the baby?

claire43 — 2022-10-25 07:48:52 UTC

Link to R v Woollin

claire43 — 2022-10-25 08:06:08 UTC

Link to R v Matthews & Alleyne

claire43 — 2022-10-25 08:12:43 UTC

Link to Prezi on Criminal Intention

claire43 — 2022-10-25 08:13:50 UTC

4. What is the difference between subjective recklessness and objective recklessness?

claire43 — 2023-10-19 15:29:21 UTC

6. Damian was told by Gez, a glazier (window fitter), that the glass in the supermarket window was unbreakable and that bricks would bounce off it. Damian decided to test this theory and threw a brick at the window. The window turned out to be breakable after all, and smashed into pieces. Damian is charged with s1(1) criminal damage.

claire43 — 2023-10-19 15:29:57 UTC

Link to Text Book

claire43 — 2023-10-24 09:16:24 UTC

c. How should the judge direct the jury on the meaning of ‘intention’ here? If you were the judge, how would you explain it, in accordance with the law laid down in the cases of Woollin and Mathews/Alleyne?

claire43 — 2024-10-17 11:33:24 UTC

Was death or serious injury virtually certain as a result of Dayo throwing the baby out of the window and did he appreciate such was the case? Foresight of death of serious injury as a virtual certainty is however only evidence of intention and not a substantive test. You are entitled but not obliged to find intention.

d. Ultimately, having been directed in accordance with your answer in (c), do you think the jury will decide that Dayo intended to kill or cause serious harm, or not?

claire43 — 2024-10-17 11:34:28 UTC

5.Explain what “recklessness” means in the criminal law of England and Wales, according to the leading case of R v G. In what way is this subjective and in what way is it objective?

claire43 — 2024-10-17 11:37:40 UTC

a. Did Damian intend (directly or indirectly) to smash the glass?

claire43 — 2024-10-17 11:40:26 UTC

Indirect - wasn't his aim or purpose

Oblique? - He didn't appreciate the glass would break as he relied on a professional's advice.

b. Was Damian reckless (in accordance with R v G) as to whether the glass would smash?

claire43 — 2024-10-17 11:40:53 UTC

b. Did Dayo indirectly intend to kill or cause serious harm to the baby?

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:26:41 UTC

Woolin [1999]

2025-10-21 15:25:12 UTC

"A result foreseen as virtually certain is an intended result"

Matthews & Alleyne [2003]

2025-10-21 15:26:44 UTC

"If the jury were sure that the appellants appreciated the virtual certainty of death…it is impossible to see how the jury could not have found that the appellants intended Johnathan to die”

A) Did Dayo directly intend to kill or cause serious harm to the baby?

2025-10-21 15:30:46 UTC

There is no direct intent, Dayo's purpose was to save the baby, not harm it. Under Mohan [1976], direct intent requires that the consequence to be D's aim.