• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Critically assess the current law regarding the Mens Rea of murder

Extracts from this document...


J.Suliman Critically assess the current law regarding the Mens Rea of murder The current law requires a certain level of mens rea in order for a crime to be called murder, which has a mandatory life sentence as a penalty. This is to ensure a just legal system where people are punished in accordance to their moral culpability. In order for an offender to have caused murder, he must have 'specific intent' (the highest level of mens rea) or 'oblique intent' to do so. The criminal must have either intended to cause death or to intend to cause grievous bodily harm (and as a result the victim died). ...read more.


First, in Moloney 1985 (where the defendant shot and killed his stepfather in a drunken challenge to see who was quicker on the draw) the House of Lords decided that foresight of consequences was only evidence of intention. The Lords also gave guidelines, which referred to the natural consequence of the defendants act, but omitted to mention probability. This was overruled in the next case. Hancock and Shankland 1986 (the defendants dropped two large concrete blocks from a bridge onto a road below in order to scare a fellow worker from going to work in a taxi and breaking the strike, they intended to stop the taxi but did not desire or intend the death of the driver). ...read more.


The jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that the consequence was a virtual certainty as a result as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case. Finally, the last case that put an end to all this confusion was Woollin (1998). The defendant threw his three-month-old baby towards the pram, which was against the wall some three feet away. The baby suffered head injuries and died. The Lords approved of the direction in Nedrick, provided the word 'infer' was changed to 'find'. However, the House of Lords disapproved of the use of the two questions in Nedrick. It seems that the courts have finally settles on a test for oblique intention, and therefore, is perceived to have been successful in finally finding a definition for this indirect intention. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Sims v Leigh Rugby Club [1969] 2 All ER 923. Here a rugby player 'must be deemed willingly to accept the risks of playing on such a ground as complies with the by - laws of the Rugby League'. This rugby player as with any other sports player on the

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    Carstens theorised ace_16k's realism hypothesis. [1] Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] (Lord Reid)coge ger segegew orge gek inge foge ge. [2] Whether an offence is to be considered one of strict liability depends on the court's construction of the statute, as in Gammon [1985] and Lim Chin Aik [1963] Carstens suppressed ace_16k's postmodernism .


    Explain whether Ken will be liable to compensate Malcolm. The Act preserves the right of the occupier to plead the defence of volenti non fit injuria in respect of risks 'willingly accepted' by the visitor. Furthermore, the occupier is also further protected by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence)

  2. tort law

    This test was first identified in Blyth v Proprietors of the Birmingham waterworks 1856. "Negligence is the omission to something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do." It was later defined in Hall v Brooklands Auto racing club 1933.

  1. Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which ...

    the defendant is on the other side of a window or door does not prevent his actions from being an assault. This example was shown in Smith v.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    At this point after the actus reus has committed Fagan has now developed the mens rea, it would seem that the two don't overlap and thus there can be no conviction. The courts solution to this is clear in James J dictum, he states: "It is not necessary that mens

  1. critical evalution of murder

    Another problem with the law on murder is with the actus reus which states that the victim must be a person in being but should this include a foetus? In A-G's Reference (No.3 of 1994), [1997] a man stabbed his pregnant girlfriend.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    The concept of breach of duty was originally defined in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), this established that the breach of duty of care is based upon the actions of a "reasonable man." This means that the defendant was acting unreasonably, or outside of his normal duties Paris v.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work