• 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)

    In Woolridge v Sumner there was no breach by the horse or rider as the conduct did not cause the accident. In this case the issue of a contract being formed was raised and a claim was made in that area also.


    case: The main provisions of the 1984 Act (which, remember, applies to unlawful visitors) are: The occupier owes a duty if, he is aware of the danger on his premises or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists; and he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, that someone is in (or may come into)

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    not coincide at the inception of the chain of causation but do at some point in the chain and thus a conviction can be successful. The principles of both coincidence and causation have developed considerably over the last century as has been shown in the discussed case law.

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

    If he foresaw death as virtually certain, this is a matter of factual evidence from which the jury may infer that the defendant intended that death.code der sededew orde dek inde fode de. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 supported these more recent decisions:codd ddr seddddw ordd ddk indd fodd dd!

  1. tort law

    For example there is no direct reference to the actual strengths or weaknesses of the particular defendant in the instant case. Standard of care is usually measured by an objective test. This is the standard that would have been adopted by the reasonable man confronted by the same circumstances.

  2. Recklessness & Intention - Critically assess the meaning of the term 'reckless' in criminal ...

    Cunningham was not guilty of an offence against s23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 of maliciously administrating a noxious gas, as he did not realise the risk of gas escaping into the next-door house. He had not intended to cause the harm, nor had he been subjectively

  1. critical evalution of murder

    The Law Commission Draft Criminal Code recommends that the mens rea of murder should be intending to cause death or intending to cause serious injury and being aware that he may cause death. A defendant who intended to cause grievous bodily harm but was not aware that the victim could die would therefore be convicted of manslaughter instead.

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

    On the other hand, the case of Sam and his employer is an exception. According to Common Sense, Common Safety, October 2010: ?Police officers should not be at risk of investigation or prosecution under health and safety legislation when engaged in the course of their duties if they have to

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