Mens Rea Study Guide
SEMINAR 1 – ANALYSING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE
Mens rea – the mental element of the offence; what does this mean? Mens rea can be divided up into two elements:
(1) intention; and
(2) recklessness.
Actus reus – can consist of:
(1) an act
(2) committed in a certain specified circumstances and
(3) leading to the prohibited consequence.
Mens rea should exist in relation to each of these separate elements.
Assault and Battery
Battery is the application of unlawful touching or force on another.
• Is it a battery to touch someone on the tube?
• Why/why not?
• Can you use a medium to inflict a battery on another?
DPP v Kay [1990] – boy conceals acid in a hot air dryer. It was held that he had committed the battery as if he had switched the machine on himself.
DPP v …show more content…
HL – Lord Diplock said that it should be a criminal offence to fail to take measures that lie within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has created. “…if at the time of such conduct one’s state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence…” At trial the jury was told by the Recorder (ask if they know what a Recorder is) that the D was under a duty to extinguish the fire he had started. The CA looked at it differently and preferred to look at it as a continuous act, rather than a ‘duty’. Smith prefers the ‘duty theory’ and Glanville Williams prefers the continuous act theory.
When applied to cases where a person has unknowingly done an act which sets in train events that, when he becomes aware of them, present an obvious risk that property belonging to another will be damaged, both theories lead to identical results. HL adopted the ‘duty theory’ because by creating a dangerous situation the D became under a duty to act. Lord Diplock conceded that the continuous act theory would provide an alternative route to
Mens rea – the mental element of the offence; what does this mean? Mens rea can be divided up into two elements:
(1) intention; and
(2) recklessness.
Actus reus – can consist of:
(1) an act
(2) committed in a certain specified circumstances and
(3) leading to the prohibited consequence.
Mens rea should exist in relation to each of these separate elements.
Assault and Battery
Battery is the application of unlawful touching or force on another.
• Is it a battery to touch someone on the tube?
• Why/why not?
• Can you use a medium to inflict a battery on another?
DPP v Kay [1990] – boy conceals acid in a hot air dryer. It was held that he had committed the battery as if he had switched the machine on himself.
DPP v …show more content…
HL – Lord Diplock said that it should be a criminal offence to fail to take measures that lie within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has created. “…if at the time of such conduct one’s state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence…” At trial the jury was told by the Recorder (ask if they know what a Recorder is) that the D was under a duty to extinguish the fire he had started. The CA looked at it differently and preferred to look at it as a continuous act, rather than a ‘duty’. Smith prefers the ‘duty theory’ and Glanville Williams prefers the continuous act theory.
When applied to cases where a person has unknowingly done an act which sets in train events that, when he becomes aware of them, present an obvious risk that property belonging to another will be damaged, both theories lead to identical results. HL adopted the ‘duty theory’ because by creating a dangerous situation the D became under a duty to act. Lord Diplock conceded that the continuous act theory would provide an alternative route to