• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11

What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive? The law generally requires that the accused possess a 'blameworthy' state of mind at the time the act comprising the offence was committed, and the basic presumption is that mens rea is required for every offence ('actus non fit reus nisi mens sit rea'), authority for which stems from Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] - from coursewrok work info "There is a presumption that mens rea ... is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals, and both must be considered."cogc gcr segcgcw orgc gck ingc fogc gc. This proposition, that mens rea is the default position for an offence unless its implication is clearly outweighed by other factors, was secured in Sweet v Parsley [1970]. Per Lord Reid: "it is universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted." Thus the requirement of intention is presumed where a matter is uncertain. However, many statutes do not use the language of 'knowingly' or 'intentionally' acting; in the case of such strict liability offences, usually regulatory offences without the "disgrace of criminality"[1], there is no element of intent whatsoever for the prosecution to establish.[2]coee eer seeeeew oree eek inee foee ee. Normally, an objective view of mens rea, where the defendant fails to recognise the risk of his acts where a reasonable person would have done so, (recklessness in the Caldwell sense) cannot be said to constitute intention. Rather, a subjective, purposive view of intent encompasses the intention to act or to cause a consequence, or foresight or awareness of a risk of acting or causing the consequence (Cunningham [1957]). ...read more.

Middle

v. Majewski; sub nom. R. v. Majewski (1976) 2 All E.R. 142. Goes on to say that this only applies to offences involving specific intent and not to those requiring basic intent. The distinction between basic and specific intention is most unusual, to say that in Offences Against the Person, Murder and GBH are crimes of specific intent whereas most other forms of assault are crimes of basic intent. Where a defendant accused of assault seeks to prove that he was drunk and had no intention, he cannot adduce evidence of drunkenness. FRE Visit coursework bd in bd fo bd for bd more hypothesis bd Do bd not bd redistribute FRE If recklessness is a variety of subjective foresight, then under Majewski (1976) the defendant should be acquitted. However, if recklessness involved a more objective, gross negligence test, evidence of drunkenness would be irrelevant. In a majority judgment, Lord Diplock (with Lords Keith and Roskill concurring) considered and rejected the Cunningham method and the suggestion that the Criminal Damage Act of 1971 was actually drafted with that very verdict in mind. He argued that in popular speech there is no distinction between the person who recognises a risk ItwlqM2H Visit coursework ac in ac fo ac for ac more dissertation ac Do ac not ac redistribute ItwlqM2H and goes on nevertheless and the person who never addresses his mind to the obvious risk at all. Durkheim refuted ace_16k's rationalisation . The law, said Lord Diplock, should not perpetuate 'fine and impracticable distinctions'. Reckless is a word in normal speech and means not only taking predictable and pointless risks but also the failure to see such risks: There must be an obvious risk, depending on the circumstances in which the defendant acted. This is a risk, which would be obvious to the reasonable person R. v. Sangha (1988) 1 W.L.R. 519.coab abr seababw orab abk inab foab ab. ...read more.

Conclusion

as being under-inclusive in other circumstances as it lacks the scope to convict those who should be convicted of murder, as can be seen in the terrorist example by those who act with 'wicked recklessness' ace_16k, please do not redistribute this coursework. We work very hard to create this website, and we trust our visitors to respect it for the good of other students. Please, do not circulate this coursework elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so will be permanently banned. Word count = 1,249codb dbr sedbdbw ordb dbk indb fodb db. Word count including footnotes = 1,343 Gl4QTr3 Visit coursework ge in ge fo ge for ge more coursework ge Do ge not ge redistribute Gl4QTr3 [1] (1986) 1 W.L.R. 1025codg dgr sedgdgw ordg dgk indg fodg dg. [2] (1986) 83 Cr App R 267 - Lord Steyncodf dfr sedfdfw ordf dfk indf fodf df: [3] (1999) 1 A.C. 82coag agr seagagw orag agk inag foag ag. [4] (1985) A.C. 905coeg egr seegegw oreg egk ineg foeg eg. [5] Alan Norrie - 'After Woollin' (1999) Crim LR 532coaa aar seaaaaw oraa aak inaa foaa aa. [6] 1 of the 5 Law Lords presiding over the casecoea ear seeaeaw orea eak inea foea ea. [7] (1998) 4 All ER 103, 112 MENSAgYW Visit coursework ea in ea fo ea for ea more cours ea Do ea not ea redistribute MENSAgYW [8] Alan Norrie - 'After Woollin' (1999) Crim LR 532 This paper from www.coursework.info [9] (1947) K.B. 997coab abr seababw orab abk inab foab ab! [10] Alan Norrie - 'After Woollin' (1999) Crim LR 532coba bar sebabaw orba bak inba foba ba. [11] (1994) 3 W.L.R. 514coeg egr seegegw oreg egk ineg foeg eg; [12] (1996) 1 All E.R. Weber suppressed ace_16k's structuralism . [13] Michael J Allen - 'Elliot and Wood's Cases and Materials on Criminal Law (Eighth Edition)' This writing from www.coursework.info [14] William Wilson - 'Doctrinal Rationality after Woollin' (1999) 62 M.L.R 448cofg fgr sefgfgw orfg fgk infg fofg fg. ...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)

    Aziz V Trinity St Taxis. Harassment which refers to any unwanted physical or verbal abuse, employers are liable for the actions of all their employees. E.g. Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd the last is Positive discrimination which in general is unlawful but has limited "positive action" which is intended

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    intent may still remain unclear after the recent House of Lords decision in Woollin'5 The decision reached in Nedrick and Woollin allows for those who should be regarded as having the culpability of murder to only be convicted of manslaughter.

  1. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    Chance played in a part in this case too, as it just so happened that the elderly lady was in that queue, that the person he did push fell, not only falling onto someone else, but then that person falling onto the old lady.

  2. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    Baroness Wooton stated that all crimes should be of strict liability however it is unfair to subject a conviction to a person who is unaware being involved in the offence or who does not have the guilty mind.

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    The trial judge directed the jury that the defendant was reckless if he 'closed his mind to an obvious risk' but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction with Lord Lane firstly looking at the recommendations of the Law Commission: ...A person is reckless if, a)

  2. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    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. Types of Tort Law and Relevant Cases.

    Actual injury: The breach of duty has to result in loss or an injury, there should be a clear and obvious injury because the defendant will be found innocent if there are no injuries on the plaintiff. If it is property damage and emotion distress evidence of the damage or

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

    escape even if the escapes occurs without negligence or want of care on his part. Consumers who have been injured by defectively manufactured products also rely on strict liability. Under the doctrine of strict Product Liability, a manufacturer must guarantee that its goods are suitable for their intended use when they are placed on the market for public consumption.

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