WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 sample

General elements of criminal liability 157 Actus resus and mens rea do not need to be simultaneous if they are part of a chain of events Under the doctrine of transferred malice , mens rea may be transferred from an intended victim to an unintended one. This is shown in the case of Latimer (1986) , where the defendant hit victim number one with his belt but it recoiled off him, injuring victim number two, an innocent bystander. The defendant had committed the actus reus of the offence with the necessary mens rea. The mens rea (intention to harm the person he aimed at) could be transferred to the actual victim. 2. Single transaction of events The courts have held that, as long as there is one unbroken transaction of events, then actus reus and mens rea need not occur at the same time. For example, if Rhidian attempts to murder Trystan by beating him to death, has not succeeded but thinks he is dead, then actually kills Trystan by running him over, Rhidian will still be guilty of murder. A similar situation arose in the case of Thabo Meli (1954) . Types of mens rea There are various types of mens rea but, for the purposes of the WJEC specification, intention, recklessness and negligence will be considered here. The mens rea for a particular offence is either defined in the relevant statute, as it is with s47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm , or through case law, as is the case with oblique intent . Intention Intention is always subjective : in order to find that a defendant had intention, the court must believe that the particular defendant on trial desired the specific consequence of their action. Consider intention in relation to the offence of murder. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought. Despite the term ‘malice’, no malice needs to be present. For example, a murder could be committed out of love or compassion, as in the case of helping a terminally ill relative to die. No ‘aforethought’ is required either: murder can be committed on the spur of the moment with no prior planning. According to Vickers (1957) , the mens rea of murder can be implied from an intention to cause grevious bodily harm. A defendant does not need to have intended to kill. The definition has therefore been interpreted as an intention to kill or cause GBH. There are two types of intention: direct and oblique . • Direct intention is where the defendant has a clear foresight of the consequences of their action and specifically desires that consequence. For example, Megan stabs Lauren because she desires the consequence of Lauren’s death. • Oblique ( or indirect) intention is less clear than direct intent. Here, the defendant may not actually desire the consequence of the action (e.g. death), but if they realise that the consequence will happen as a virtual certainty , they can be said to have oblique intention. This area of law has evolved through case law. The current direction on oblique intent comes from the case of Nedrick (1986) as confirmed in Woollin (1998) , when the judge stated that ‘the jury should be directed that they were not entitled to find the necessary intention for a conviction of murder unless they felt sure that death or serious bodily harm had been a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant had appreciated that such was the case, the decision being one for them to be reached on a consideration of all the evidence’. Thabo Meli (1954) The defendants had attempted to kill the victim by beating him up but he was not dead. They then disposed of what they thought was his corpse over a cliff. The victim died as a result of the fall. The court held that there was one transaction of events and, as long as the defendants had the relevant mens rea at the beginning of the transaction, it could coincide with the actus reus when that occurred. KEY CASE subjective: an assumption relating to the individual in question (the subject). objective: a test that considers not the particular defendant in question, but what another average, reasonable person would have done or thought if placed in the same position as the defendant. KEY TERMINOLOGY The area of oblique intent has developed through case law over the years to the current direction. Explore the following cases and consider their facts, how the law has changed and why. • S8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 : ‘natural and probable consequence’. • R v Maloney (1985) : ‘natural consequence of the action’. • Hancock and Shankland (1986) : ‘degrees of probability’. • Nedrick (1986) . • Woolin (1998) . STRETCH AND CHALLENGE