The law of intention‚ following the cases of Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 and Matthews [2003] 3 Cr App R 30‚ is now satisfactorily defined in the criminal law. Intention‚ normally means desire to aim at something. However‚ in criminal law‚ mens rea known as ‘guilty mine’‚ it requires two distinguishable intentions which are direct intention as well as oblique intention‚ and apart from‚ also recklessness. Direct intention means the consequences of the action is desired specifically‚ just like murder
Premium Criminal law Law Appeal
the modern approaches to the definition of ’intention’ in English criminal Law -look at hierarchy of fault elements‚ intention v recklessness‚ foresight and intention 1) For some offences prosecution must prove BRD that the accused intended a particular consequence. ie murder‚ intention to kill/GBH ‚ recklessness will not suffice 2) also in OAPA 1861‚ s18 intention alone suffices ‚ intent to wound/GBH 3) there is no stat definition of intention. Its meaning is found in judicial decisions
Premium Risk Law Criminal law
Explain the term “intention” as the mens rea of a crime using decided cases to support your explanation. The Latin word mens rea‚ when translated means ‘guilty mind’ is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary as “the state of mind that the prosecution‚ to secure a conviction‚ must prove that a defendant had when committing a crime.” Intention is ‘the purpose or design with which an act is done. It is the foreknowledge of the act‚ coupled with the desire of it‚ such foreknowledge and desire
Free Criminal law Actus reus Crime
“The Law of Intention‚ following the cases of Woolin (1999) 1 AC 82 and Matthews (2003) 2 Cr App R 30‚ is now satisfactorily defined in the criminal law”. Discuss. Mens Rea refers to the guilty mind required for criminal liability. Intention and recklessness are the two forms of Mens Rea that are part of most offences and have been the subject of judicial scrutiny. There is a vast volume of case law on intention and recklessness which demonstrates the problems that courts have had in perfecting
Premium Law Criminal law Appeal
The law generally requires that the accused possess a ‘blameworthy’ state of mind at the time the act comprising the offence was committed‚ and the basic presumption is that mens rea is required for every offence (‘actus non fit reus nisi mens sit rea’)‚ authority for which stems from Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] – “There is a presumption that mens rea … is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence
Premium Criminal law
ACL REFERENCE MUST BE USED In Ferguson v Walkley (2008) 17 VR 647‚ Harper J said (at [1])‚ “The principles of democratic governance have had difficulty in accommodating laws designed to deal with offensive behaviour — with which I include offensive language.” Later in that same case‚ Harper J observed (at [5])‚ “According to Professors Bronitt and McSherry‚ “[c]riminalising offensive language or conduct has the potential to interfere with the freedom of expression‚ assembly and association protected
Premium Law Human rights Crime
Top of Form Bottom of Form THE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY‚ JAMAICA THE FACULTY OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW I CAUSATION ______________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION Where the actus reus of a crime includes specific consequences e.g. the crime of Murder - the consequence being death‚ it must be shown that the Defendant caused the victim’s death (although the defendant’s act need not be the sole or the main cause of death). A common approach of the courts has been to
Premium Causality Criminal law Causation
2 The elements of an offence Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 General analysis of criminal offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Limitations on the value of the Latin terms actus reus and mens rea . . . . 14 Proof of the ingredients of an offence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Lawful excuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Reflect and review . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Premium Criminal law Mens rea Actus reus
revised revised revised revised edition edition edition edition edition 1999 2001 2003 2005 2008 Printed and published by the University of South Africa Muckleneuk‚ Pretoria CRW101U/1/2009±2011 98293788 3B2 Cover illustration: ``The third of May 1808’’ by Francisco de Goya (1746±1828). CRW-style III CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ± LITERATURE AND METHODS OF STUDY .......................................................... v 1 Introductory topics ..............................................
Premium Criminal law Crime Criminology
different mens rea. Example: murder requires intention to cause death or GBH. Sometimes an offence will have different mens rea for different aspects of the crime. Example: rape needs intention to commit sexual intercourse but only needs recklessness as to whether the victim is consenting. Intention The most blameworthy state of mind – worse to kill intentionally than recklessly or negligently. Meaning of Intention House of Lords => intention is to be given its ordinary meaning. Judges
Premium Criminal law