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

"The law relating to the mens rea of murder in England and Wales has now become settled through a series of judicial decisions, which together, have made it unnecessary for Parliament to legislate on the matter" - Critically consider.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"The law relating to the mens rea of murder in England and Wales has now become settled through a series of judicial decisions, which together, have made it unnecessary for Parliament to legislate on the matter." Critically consider the truth of this statement. Except for strict liability offences, in order for the accused to be found guilty of the criminal offence, the prosecution must prove the accused committed the actus reus of the offence with the appropriate mens rea. "Mens rea" is the Latin for "guilty mind" and refers to the state of mind of the accused. The required mens rea varies depending on the offence, but there are 3 states of mind, which constitute the necessary mens rea of a criminal offence. These are intention, cunningham recklessness and caldwell recklessness. When discussing mens rea, the objective and subjective tests are talked about. A subjective test involves looking at what the defendant was actually thinking. Whereas an objective test considers what a reasonable person would have thought in the defendant's position. The mens rea for murder is "malice aforethought", which can be one of two things; intention to kill or intention to cause serious bodily harm (SBH). ...read more.

Middle

Foresight is merely evidence from which intention can be found. Before Moloney in the case of Hyam v DPP (1975) it had looked as though foresight was actually intention, though the judgement in that case was not very clear. The court held that the defendant must have foreseen death or GBH were highly likely to result from his or her actions, and this was sufficient mens rea for murder. However, in Moloney the HL claimed that Hyam had been wrongly decided, and that nothing less than intention to kill or cause GBH would constitute malice aforethought; merely foreseeing the victims death as probable was not intent, though it could be evidence of it. The guidance for juries proved to be problematic in R v Hancock and Shankland (1986), the trial judge recited the Moloney guidelines to the jury and the defendants were convicted of murder. The CA quashed the conviction and this was confirmed by the HL. Lord Scarman agreed with the CA saying the Moloney guidelines were deficient, and stated they were "unsafe and misleading" and the jurors should decide whether intention to kill existed, based on all the evidence from the case. In Nedrick (1986), a case similar to Hyam, the jury convicted the defendant of murder. ...read more.

Conclusion

There has been a lengthy campaign to reduce the forms of malice aforethought to one, the intention to kill, on the grounds that the term murder should be reserved for the most blameworthy type of behaviour. A HL select committee recommended replacing intent to cause GBH/SBH with intent to cause serious personal harm, being aware that death may result from that harm. This is contained in the Draft Criminal Code. "Being aware" would imply subjective knowledge; it would not be sufficient that a reasonable person would have known if the accused did not. Clause 18 (b) of the Criminal Code Bill (1989) defines intention by stating that "a person acts . . . (b) intentionally with respect to . . . (ii) a result when he acts either in order to bring it about or being aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events." In the commentary on the draft code the Law Commission states: A definition of intention for criminal law purposes must refer. . . to "the means as well the end and the inseparable consequences of the end as well as the means" . . . A persons awareness of any degree of probability (short of virtual certainty) that a particular result will follow from his acts ought not, we believe, to be classed as intention to cause that result. ...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)

    Despite serious injuries, the player decided against any civil or criminal proceedings and it is now up to the FA to decide a suitable punishment for the offending player and/or club. Similar to the Condon v Basi case is a game recently when Liverpool played Blackburn Rovers where a player

  2. Marked by a teacher

    "The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and ...

    4 star(s)

    if the consequences of that operation will be the virtual certain death of one of the twins. This is illustrated in Re A (Children) (Conjoined twins) where the judge stated 'however little they desired that end...her death would inevitably follow' The death of one of the children was virtually certain

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    A lot of solid proof is needed to show they had been involuntarily intoxicated which is difficult to show and believe. Problems arise concerning specific and basic intent crimes. Specific intent crimes is where the mens rea goes beyond the actus reus but it is not easy to find the other intents of the defendant.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    towards risk can form the necessary mens rea and complete the offence. Another important part of the case law on coincidence is the Attorney General's reference No.4 of 19806. This ruling in this case is that if there are multiple acts, one of which caused the death of the victim,

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

    Austen theorised ace_16k's marxism theory. However, somewhat more recent cases accept the distinction between intention and mere foresight. The question was raised in Hyam [1976], where the accused sought to frighten her husband's mistress to leave the area, while realising that serious harm was a probability.

  2. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    or of foreseen that it would result in Leonard's land being damaged. Ken may file for the defence of Volenti non fit injuria (malcom), absolute statutory authority, the nuisance was caused by a stranger and the Ken could not possibly have known of it. Contrast, however, Rennaway -v- Thompson (1980)

  1. Using actual situations, describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal ...

    but is allowed, by law, to use one of three defences to lesson the charge to manslaughter. These defences are diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact. Involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing where the accused did not have the specific intention for murder.

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

    Fire officers arrived to extinguish the fire. Titus, a fire officer, rushed into the restaurant?s kitchen in order to extinguish the flames, knocking over an open can of the stored olive oil. The oil caught fire and increased the intensity of the fire.

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