Mens Rea Cases 

Name Case Legal Principle

Moloney (1985) D and step father were HOL ruled that foresight
drunk. Talking and of consequence is only
laughing, d phoned evidence of intention.
police, saying had Was death serious
murdered step father. injury/natural
Had seen who was consequence? Did D
faster at loading and foresee that
firing shotgun. consequence as being
Convicted of murder but natural result?
conviction was quashed
on appeal.
Hancock and Shankland Ds were miners on Omission of word
(1986) strike. Tried to prevent “probable” was held
another miner from here to make guidelines
going work by pushing defective. Guidelines
concrete block from are therefore no longer
bridge onto road. Block law
struck windscreen and
killed driver.
Nedrick (1986) D had grudge against COA told jury to ask
woman. Poured paraffin themselves 2 Qs – How
through letter box and probable was
set alight. Child died in consequence? Did D
fire. foresee that
consequence?
Woollin (1998) D threw 3 month baby Went to the HOL, who
towards pram against felt that COA’s views are
wall. Baby suffered not helpful.
head injuries and died.
Matthews and Alleyne D dropped victim 25 It meant foresight of
(2003) feet from bridge. Could consequence is not
not swim. Watched him intention. Rule of
“dogpaddle” left and v evidence. If jury decides
drowned. that D foresaw virtual
certainty of death or
serious injury then
entitled to find intention
but do not have to do
so.
Cunningham (1957) D tore gas meter from Uses the word
wall of empty house to “maliciously” to indicate
steal money. Caused mens rea required. D
gas to seep into next must either intend
door where woman consequence or realise
suffered. risk to consequence
Mens Rea Cases 

Metropolitan Police D had grievance against During 1982 and 2003,

Commissioner v hotel owner. Got drunk D could be guilty of
Caldwell (1981) and decided to put fire certain offences even
in hotel. Fire was put though he had not
out quickly, without realised there was a
serious damage risk.
G and another (2003) Ds, 11 and 12 boys set HOL held that D could
fire to bundles of not be guilty unless had
newspapers. Threw realised risk and
under wheelie bun and decided to take it.
left. Caught fire to shop
and other buildings,
causing £1 million
damages
Lidar (2000) D and others asked to COA affirmed that
leave public house. 1 involuntary
shouted something at V, manslaughter could still
doorman of pub. V put based on subjective
arms in window. D recklessness. Must be
drove off. V was prove manslaughter,
dragged under rear must be shown that D
wheel and suffered foresaw there was
injuries and died. highly probable risk of
serious injury ( or death)
to V.
Sweet v Parsley (1969) Owned farmhouse to Even if Act does not
students who were actually state that D
smoking cannabis. Was must have knowledge,
not guilty as no sometimes inferred that
knowledge. knowledge is required
for D to be guilty.
Latimer (1886) D aimed blow with belt D can be guilty if he
at man at pub who had intended to commit a
attacked him. Belt similar crime but
bounced off man and hit against different victim.
woman face. Guilty of
assault against woman
Thabo Meli v R (1954) Ds attacked man and Court had to decide
believed to have killed whether actus reus and
him. Pushed body over mens rea were present
cliff. In fact, man together.
survived attack but died
of exposure when
unconscious at foot of
cliff.
Church (1965) D had fight and knocked D in this case were
Mens Rea Cases 
out woman.
Unsuccessfully, tried to
bring her round.
Thought was dead and
put in river. She
drowned.
Fagan v Metropolitian Told by police to park by
Police Commissioner kerb. In this, drove on
(1986) policeman’s foot without
realising. At first, F
refused to move car.
When policeman
pointed out what
happened, asked F
several times to move
car off foot. Eventually, f
did move car.
guilty as required mens
rea and actus reus were
combined in series of
acts
Where continuing act for
actus reus and some
point while act is still
going on, d has
necessary mens rea,
then 2 do coincide d will
be guilty.