Criminal - Seminar 5 - Mens Rea - FT217 by Claire Turner

Link to R v Woollin

claire43 — 2022-10-25 11:12:10 UTC

Link to R v Matthews & Alleyne

claire43 — 2022-10-25 11:12:14 UTC

Link to Prezi on Criminal Intention

claire43 — 2022-10-25 11:12:17 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 16:15:11 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 — 2024-10-17 16:15:48 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:16:14 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:16:32 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 16:16:50 UTC

You are not entitled to find intention unless you are sure that death or serious injury would result from throwing a baby out of a window and that Dayo appreciated this would be the result. However, foresight of death or serious injury is only evidence of intention, not intention itself. You must consider all of the evidence before making a decision.

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 16:17:08 UTC

Prosecution - As there is foresight of death or serious injury by throwing the baby out of the window, then intention is established he is guilty of murder (ReA; Woollin)

Defence - Accept that there is foresight of death or serious injury in throwing the baby out of the window. However, this is only evidence of intention and not intention itself. (Mathews & Alleyne)

s8 CJA 67 - consider all evidence. Application - the baby would definitely have died.

Academic opinion - Norrie, Ashworth, Law Commission -

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 16:17:26 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 16:17:43 UTC

You are not entitled to find intention unless you feel sure that Debbie foresaw death or serious injury as a virtual certainty from planting a bomb in the city centre, timed to go off at 11am despite sending a warning to the local newspaper an hour before.

Matthews - foresight of death or serious injury is only evidence of intention not intention itself. You need to consider all the evidence before making a decision.

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:18:02 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:18:19 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 16:18:37 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 16:18:59 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:19:16 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:19:32 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:37:48 UTC

Prosecution -

1) Bomb

2) City Centre

3) Warning - knew there was a virtual certainty of harm if she didn't warn someone

4) Should have called the police rather than the newspaper

5) Time? - 1 hour not sufficient. 11am - busy time of day.

Defence

1) Warning

2) 1 hour enough