• 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...


"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.


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.


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

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    against a person because of their disability in matters of education, employment, housing and the provisions of services. A disability maybe physical or mental and might involve mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination, continence, the ability to lift and carry ordinary object, their use of speech, hearing, eyesight, memory, concentration or learning ability.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    Lord Steyn, in R v Woollin added 'that the trial judge is best placed to decide what direction is required by the circumstances of the case' showing that the law is still open for interpretation. Nedrick and Woollin did add clarity to the meaning of oblique intention in concluding that

  1. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    Goodward owed Wattleworth a duty of care but he was not in breach of it as causation was not proved. There can be several defences used in these circumstances the first being volenti. In Woolridge v Sumner it states that this defence does not normally apply to cases of spectators

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

    throwing a stone or other missile or pointing a loaded gun with someone at rage. There is no assault if the victim if it is obvious to the victim that the defendant is unable to carry out the threat of violence, however if violence is possible then the fact that

  1. Fault Essay

    However D was not totally absolved of responsibility given that he had clearly attempted to poison his mother! Legal causation is closely associated with moral responsibility, the de minimis principle assigns individual responsibility by considering whether the D's conduct had made more than a minimal contribution to the consequence.


    He was injured and sued the defendants for damages. The defendants were occupiers for the purpose of the Act. Their defence of volenti (consent) failed since the court held that knowledge of danger was not assent. Nevertheless the plaintiff's damages were reduced by 50% in respect of his own contributory negligence.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    falls after the blow and cracks his head on the pavement and dies. A has the mens rea for harm and thus manslaughter can be considered. Another important case which shows the development of the law of coincidence is that of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Constabulary4.

  2. 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.

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