R v Nedrick and R v Woollin: intention in murder.

The first 200 words of this essay...

Lettie Smythers: Tutorial Group 9 3rd January 2003

> R v Nedrick and R v Woollin: intention in murder.

Many offences require 'intent' as an essential part of the crime, not only in murder but also in criminal attempts, grievous bodily harm and many other offences. The fundamental idea is that the defendant's purpose in his or her acts is to bring about the specific result. Murder and manslaughter have the same actus reus - the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature (i.e. a natural person) within the Queens Peace - but murder is distinguished from manslaughter by the presence or absence of malice aforethought. Since the passing of the Homicide Act 1957 it has generally been accepted that the mens rea is not restricted to an intention to kill; an intention to cause grievous bodily harm will also suffice and constitute malice aforethought (R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664).

However this apparently simple formula conceals several issues about mens rea generally that have been the subject of a series of House of Lords decisions over the last 20 years. The mental element required for murder has varied over the centuries, from when judges were