• 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)

    The question is whether the sports person has fallen below that standard and it is a question for the judge to decide based on the facts proven in the case. It is up to the claimant to prove that the defendant was negligent and this may be the hardest task.


    Act 1945. In the case of Bunker -v- Charles Brand & Son (1969), the claimant's employers were subcontractors of the defendants for tunnelling in connection with the construction of the Victoria Underground Line in London. The claimant carried out a modification to a digging machine whilst it was in operation.

  1. tort law

    the greater the precautions that the defendant will be required to take. - How practical were these precautions? - What is the social importance of the defendant activity? The minimum standard of care to be achieved by the reasonable person is objective.

  2. critical evalution of murder

    The shock brought on labour and the baby was born 8-10 weeks prematurely and after 4 months, the baby eventually died, as a result of the premature birth. The defendant was charged with the murder of the baby. The question raised with the actus reus was whether the baby could be considered a human being?

  1. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    Assault is a summary offence and is punishable with a maximum 6 months imprisonment and or �5,000 fine. Battery is again an offence under s39 Criminal Justice Act. It is a summary offence and is punishable with a maximum 6 months imprisonment and or �5,000 fine.


    Causation is both a question of fact and law. It has to be first established that there is a factual link between Tom's act (of steering the car into the ditch) and Sara's death. This is resolved by applying the 'but-for' test - 'but for' the act of Tom would Sara have died?

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

    will not think he has failed if the person survives.[3] Thus the defendant's true 'purpose' in acting may be more easily discovered. In Steane [1947], the defendant had been compelled, through concern for the sake of his family, to make broadcasts for the enemy during the Second World War, and

  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