• 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

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

    5 star(s)

    The act also protects progressive illnesses that might affect the person later on in life. BUT Discrimination can be justified with disability unlike the others e.g. placing a person within a job which isn't suitable to them. Lastly there is age discrimination which is protected by the Employment Equality (age)

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    The Court of Appeal said the net at either end of the pitch was sufficient and the spectators are there at their own risk. The same acceptance of risk is confirmed in Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club where a spectator who was struck by a racing car whilst behind the wooden barrier had no claim.

  1. Fault Essay

    If so he remains the cause as illustrated in Pagett, where although the police shot the pregnant woman they only did so in response to the situation, Pagett remained liable as he had made a significant contribution. However the law acknowledges that other parties or even the victim can break

  2. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    It doe s not apply where the claimant only knew of the existence rather than understanding it (Stewart v Lawson) nor does it apply where the claimant is forced to accept the risk (Smith v Baker (1891). It commonly applies in situation if physical harm is likely.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    Fagan's actus reus was driving onto the police constable's foot which initially was accidental and without mens rea thus there is no crime. However, at the point which Fagan realised the situation and that the actus reus had occurred he demonstrated evidence of mens rea by telling the policeman "Fuck you, you can wait!"

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

    A person may be guilty of involuntary manslaughter in three ways: by an act which is unlawful and dangerous, by recklessness and by gross negligence. When I compare the actus reus' of murder and manslaughter, it can be seen that in both murder and manslaughter the unlawful killing of a person is the actus reus.

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

    was prosecuted for doing an act likely to assist the enemy "with intent to assist the enemy". His conviction was quashed, however, in holding that although he did intend to make the broadcasts, he did so under duress: his ulterior intent had been to protect his family.

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

    for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator (Source: Wikipedia). A person who did not cause the injury has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently.

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