Criminal - Seminar 5 - Mens Rea -FT206 by Claire Turner

Link to Prezi on Criminal Intention

claire43 — 2022-10-25 11:06:34 UTC

Link to R v Matthews & Alleyne

claire43 — 2022-10-25 11:06:38 UTC

Link to R v Woollin

claire43 — 2022-10-25 11:06:42 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 16:15:15 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 16:15:52 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:16:19 UTC

No - intention to save the baby, wasn't him aim or purpose to kill the baby

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 16:16:55 UTC

Was death or serious injury a virtual certainty as a result of throwing the baby out of the window and did Dayo appreciate such to be the case? Virtual certainty isn't the same as intention but is strong evidence from which you are entitled 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 16:17:12 UTC

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’. harm’.

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:17:30 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 16:17:48 UTC

Was death or serious injury a virtual certainty from planting the bomb? Did she appreciate that a bomb timed to go off at 11 am would cause serious injury or death even though she telephoned a local newspaper at 10am?

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:18:06 UTC

Prosecution :

1) Highly populated

2) 1 hour - insufficient

3) Time of day - middle of morning busy

4) Phoned newspaper instead of the police

Defence -

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:18:23 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 16:18:40 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 16:19:03 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:19:19 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:19:36 UTC

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:26:05 UTC

Woollin - death or serious harm was virtually certain?

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

claire43 — 2024-10-17 16:27:57 UTC

2025-10-21 13:30:41 UTC

“The consequence was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciated that such was the case.” Woollin - Oblique

2025-10-21 13:32:26 UTC

"a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the accused's power, the commission of the offence... no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not”. Mohan - direct intention

2025-10-21 13:33:45 UTC

“Foresight of virtual certainty is not the same as intention, but it is strong evidence from which a jury may find it.” - Matthews & Alleyne - reinforce direction in Woollin above is an evidential direction not legal.