Chapter 4 Self-test questions

How do we broadly define the correspondence principle?

That legal practitioners should correspond with their clients.

That each part of the actus reus should usually have an accompanying mens rea.

That the offence charged should fit the facts of the harm.

That the defendant's charges should match those of their co-accused.

Are "intention" and "recklessness" stand-alone forms of mens rea, in the absence of any other information?

They are enough for a sensible juror to make sense of.

They require a full explanation, but not on the indictment.

They are sufficient as stand-alone forms of mens rea.

They require further clarification as to what D allegedly did.

Are there any exceptions to the correspondence principle?

No – it is a universal rule involving the mens rea, and therefore must be followed.

Yes – the exceptions are strict liability offences and crimes with ulterior mens rea elements.

No – there are no exceptions, because the mens rea is an essential part of all criminal offences.

Yes – the exceptions are where mens rea is irrelevant.

Strict liability offences need no mens rea other than the mere fact of the conduct itself being voluntary. True or false?

False

True

Which of the following is an "ulterior mens rea element" of theft?

Intention to permanently deprive.

Property belonging to another.

Dishonesty.

The objective standard of reasonable and honest people.

What is the "doctrine of transferred malice"?

Where D's mens rea is also attributed to their co-defendant.

Where the mens rea can be either intention or recklessness.

Where the malice applies to a range of possible Vs.

Where a specific mens rea is carried out against a different V.

What is the "coincidence principle"?

That the offence charged is one which coincides with the facts.

That the actus reus and mens rea happen at the same time.

That the facts constituting the crime only match one offence.

That the commission of an offence should not be accidental.

When can a crime still occur, even if the actus reus precedes the mens rea?

When there is an accident and nobody intends any harm.

Where there is an unforeseen event or occurrence.

Where there is an intervening act or a break in causation.

Where there is a continuing act or omissions liability.

When can a crime still occur, even if the mens rea precedes the actus reus?

Where the offence is one of strict liability.

Where the offence is a statutorily-created one.

Where they form part of a single transaction.

Where the intention is clearly communicated.

If D intend to kill by one action, but actually kills by a later one, when they think they are disposing of a "body," is this a crime?

Yes – because they are part of the same sequence of events.

No – because the principle of coincidence is undermined.

Yes – because of the doctrine of transferred malice.

No – because the initial, intentional, act did not kill V.

Select a Topic