Mens Rea & Causation

Question 1

R v Woollin [1999] — test for oblique intention?

Accepted Answer

The jury may find intention where death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and the defendant appreciated that this was the case. (Source: [1999] 1 AC 82 (HL))

Question 2

R v G [2003] — effect?

Accepted Answer

Recklessness is subjective: the defendant must be aware of a risk and unreasonably take it. Overruled the objective Caldwell test. (Source: [2003] UKHL 50)

Question 3

R v White [1910] — principle?

Accepted Answer

Factual ("but for") causation: the defendant poisoned his mother's drink but she died of a heart attack, so he was guilty only of attempted murder. (Source: [1910] 2 KB 124)

Question 4

R v Blaue [1975] — principle?

Accepted Answer

The thin skull rule: the defendant must take the victim as found, including religious beliefs (refusal of a blood transfusion did not break the chain of causation). (Source: [1975] 1 WLR 1411 (CA))

Question 5

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] — principle?

Accepted Answer

Continuing act: the actus reus (driving onto the officer's foot) continued, so mens rea formed during it sufficed for assault. (Source: [1969] 1 QB 439)

Question 6

R v Jogee [2016] — accessory liability?

Accepted Answer

Foresight is evidence of intention but not the test; the accessory must intend to assist or encourage the commission of the crime. Overturned "parasitic accessorial liability". (Source: [2016] UKSC 8)

1.R v Woollin [1999] — test for oblique intention?

2.R v G [2003] — effect?

3.R v White [1910] — principle?

4.R v Blaue [1975] — principle?

5.Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] — principle?

6.R v Jogee [2016] — accessory liability?