Criminal - Seminar 5 - Mens Rea -FT208 by Claire Turner

Link to Prezi on Criminal Intention

claire43 — 2022-10-25 11:19:06 UTC

Link to R v Matthews & Alleyne

claire43 — 2022-10-25 11:19:11 UTC

Link to R v Woollin

claire43 — 2022-10-25 11:19:14 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 — 2024-10-17 16:14:58 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 — 2024-10-17 16:15:33 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:16:05 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:16:24 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 16:16:41 UTC

You are not entitled to find that Dayo intended to kill the baby unless you are sure that death or serious injury was virtually certain to happen as a result of Dayo throwing the child out of the window and furthermore, that Dayo appreciate that such death or serious injury would be virtually certain to happen as a result of his actions.

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 16:17:00 UTC

Prosecution - Dayo foresaw that throwing the child out of the window was virtually certain to cause its death. Woollin - Lord Steyn - foresight of virtual certainty of death is intention. (Re A)

Defence - Trying to protect the baby. Foresight of virtual certainty of death or serious is only evidence of intention and not intention itself (Matthews & Alleyne) s 8 CJA 67 - jury have to consider all the evidence. Here, there was a fire and the child would have died anyway.

Lord Steyn - Woollin

Academic opinion - Norrie, Ashworth.

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 — 2024-10-17 16:17:18 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:17:35 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:17:52 UTC

Prosecution -

1) Telephoned local newspaper - police

2) City Centre - busy

3) Time - 11 am

4) Bomb

Defence

1) 11am - extra 15 mins

2) 1 hour - thought that would be enough

3) Warning

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:18:11 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 16:18:29 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 — 2024-10-17 16:18:52 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:19:08 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:19:24 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:41:29 UTC