What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive?
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
Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny down some steps. Jenny suffered a very badly broken leg that needed surgery. She also suffered cuts and bruises to her other leg.
Paper 3 The Facts Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny down some steps. Jenny suffered a very badly broken leg that needed surgery. She also suffered cuts and bruises to her other leg. Question (in 3 parts) (a) Briefly explain the legal requirement that actus reus and mens rea should be contemporaneous (occur together). (5 marks) Plan A brief explanation of actus reus - guilty act, omission, state of affairs, result crimes A brief explanation of mens rea - guilty mind, types of mens rea (intention, recklessness) The requirement that actus reus & mens rea must coincide A brief explanation of exceptions to actus reus & mens rea coinciding - crimes of strict liability Essay Most crimes (except strict liability) require the prosecution to prove both the actus reus (the guilty act) and the mens rea (the guilty mind) of the crime. What they are required to prove will be set out in the definition of the offence. There are four types of actus reus. The most usual is a positive voluntary act on the part of the defendant. Secondly in result crimes the criminal act by itself may not be enough - for example for a murder charge a death must have taken place. Unusually there may be a state of affairs crime such as occurred in R v Larsonneur or Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent where the defendant has little or no control
Intoxication – The Legal Viewpoint.
Intoxication - The Legal Viewpoint. Intoxication by drink or by drugs - the criminal law makes no distinction - is no defence in itself, but has frequently to be considered either as leading to a lack of mens rea or as the cause of a mistake that may offer a defence. The law is unsympathetic towards those who injure others or their property while under the influence of drink or drugs taken voluntarily, and rightly so considering the very large number of crimes that are alcohol- or drug-related. A number of studies have shown that between half and two-thirds of the perpetrators of homicide, assault and rape had been drinking (and that a large proportion of these were seriously intoxicated) at or just before the time of the offence. Alcohol is associated with up to 70 per cent of homicides and serious assaults, and with 50 per cent of fights or assaults in the home. Specific intent Where an offence is one of specific intent, and D did not have that intent (whether because of intoxication or for any other reason), he is entitled to be acquitted. Offences of specific intent include murder, wounding with intent, theft, handling stolen goods, indecent assault where an indecent purpose must be proved, and all attempts. Note that the question is not whether D was capable of forming the necessary intent, but whether he did in fact form it. DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479, HL A man D
What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive?
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] - "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." 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 terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea
The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea come from the Latin "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea". The meaning of this Latin term translates as "an act is not criminal in the absence of a guilty mind" This one sentence forms the basis for conviction under criminal law, the two key elements being the actus reus (criminal act) and the accompanying mens rea (guilty mind). Arising from this basis for criminal prosecution are the two legal principles of coincidence and causation. Coincidence refers to the temporal coincidence of both the actus reus and the mens rea. Causation goes beyond coincidence and establishes a chain of causation thus stretching out the actus reus and allowing the mens rea to overlap thus facilitating a conviction. In order to show how the law has widened we must first establish and discuss the development of the basic law of coincidence. One of the first important cases on coincidence is Thabo Meli v R. 1. The case concerns a man being taken to a hut and intoxicated. He was hit over the head and the appellants believing him to be dead rolled his body over a cliff where he later died of exposure. The key issue raised here is that there are 2 acts; firstly the assault and secondly the act of rolling the victim over a cliff leading to his death from exposure. The first act was carried out with the requisite mens rea but the actus reus of murder/manslaughter was
Barristers and Solicitors
(a) Outline the work undertaken by barristers and solicitors. For more than a hundred years the legal profession in England and Wales has been divided into barristers and solicitors, and each branch has until recently had its own role to play. Solicitors are traditionally seen as the general practitioners of the legal profession, providing advice to the public across a wide legal spectrum, while barristers are seen primarily as advocates. Neither of these pictures is completely true. Many solicitors do still work in "High Street" offices and offer general legal advice and other legal services to the public at large. Most "High Street" firms give advice and assistance in the drafting and execution of wills, in conveyancing, in family disputes, in personal injuries claims, and in criminal matters, and many deal with other areas such as employment law, immigration law and housing law. In these fields they can give initial advice, can try to negotiate a settlement, can draft contracts and other documents, and can sometimes represent their clients in court if necessary. Within a given firm, an individual solicitor may specialise in some particular aspect of law, and some firms specialise as a whole. In particular, there are a number of large firms (mainly in London) who deal only with corporate clients, providing advice, assistance and representation in areas such as company
Consider Dennis' liability for the deaths of Sarah and Mary.
Consider Dennis' liability for the deaths of Sarah and Mary. In this situation, the prosecution will not be able to bring the case for murder but they can have involuntary manslaughter on Dennis for the act he played which resulted in the deaths. Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful act of manslaughter, which is also known as constructive manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter. In this situation, Sarah and Mary died as a consequence of Dennis' act, which was an unlawful act of criminal damage, which will result in the charge of unlawful act manslaughter. This is when the crime hasn't got its own Mens Rea but adopts it from another for example using the Mens Rea of theft and whilst in the process of theft, a person is killed, the accused will be charged with unlawful act manslaughter. In R v Mitchell (1983), it was said to determine the type of manslaughter, it has to be shown that the accused has committed an unlawful act, that the act was so dangerous in the sense that a sober and reasonable person would inevitably recognise that it carried some risk of harm, that the act was a substantial cause of death, and the accused intended to commit the act as distinct from intending its consequence. The prosecution must prove that the deaths were caused by the defendant's acts. Difficulties to prove this may arise when there is more than one cause of death. In the case
Briefly Explain The Meaning Of These Terms: Actus Reus And Mens Rea
Briefly Explain The Meaning Of These Terms: Actus Reus And Mens Rea Actus Reus means the 'guilty act' this must be voluntary. For example if a swarm of bees enter a car window and the drivers swerves, injuring someone, then he will not be liable because it wasn't voluntary. The Actus Reus may be an act, a failure to act or a state of affairs. The act may be direct or indirect action. Examples of a direct act could be battery or rape where the defendant makes contact with the claimant. An example of an indirect act could be where somebody shoots another, for this they would need to establish a chain of causation; to decide that pulling the trigger led to the claimant's injury. The defendant does not need to be aware of any medical conditions, for example if a swarm of bees left a honey farm and stung an allergic car driver causing him to have an anaphylactic shock and die, the owner of the bees would still be charged, this is known as the "thin skull rule". In another case a Jehovah Witness refused a blood transfusion after being stabbed, she later died, the person who stabbed her was still convicted with manslaughter because his actions led to her death and she would have died even if had not gone to hospital. The failure to act is known as omission; the principle of this is that failure to act is not liable except if it is someone's contractual responsibility to act.
"The general principle remains that a person is not guilty for omitting to do something." Discuss.
Ayesha "The general principle remains that a person is not guilty for omitting to do something." Discuss. The law will punish someone if they are under a duty to act but omit to do so. It must be decided, however, whether in law you are dealing with an act or an omission. There are three types of situations where this question comes up; continuing acts, supervening faults, and euthanasia. In continuing acts the concept was used in the Fagan case (1969), where the defendant drove over the policeman's foot. At the time, the defendant did not have the mens rea for driving over the policeman's foot, which therefore, was an omission and not an act. He had the mens rea when he was on the foot and would not move. It was held that driving on the policeman's foot and staying there was a continuous act, followed by an omission, and during the continuous act the defendant had the mens rea, and was therefore liable. Another example of a continuing act is in Kaitamaki (1985), where the defendant was charged with rape because at the time of penetration, he thought that the woman was consenting, yet he did not withdraw when he had realized that she was not consenting. A supervening fault is where a person who is aware that they have done something in order to endanger someone's life or property, and does nothing to stop any harm occurring; the original act is treated as the
Intention is the mens rea phrase, which expresses the highest level of blameworthiness of an offender.
(1518 words.) Intention is the mens rea phrase, which expresses the highest level of blameworthiness of an offender. If a person aims to cause a result, he is more responsible than a person who acts recklessly. It is significant to identify the margin between intention and recklessness not only to decide the degree of guilt of the offender for sentencing reasons, but also to establish in many cases whether the offender is accountable to conviction where the offence charged is one, which necessitate intention to be verified. Two concepts, intention and recklessness, hold the key to the understanding of a large part of criminal law. Some crimes need intention and nothing else will do, but most can be committed either intentionally or recklessly. Some crimes require particular kinds of intention or knowledge. Kenny's view was also that: no external behaviour, though grave or even serious its consequences may have been, is ever penalizing unless it is formed by some form of mens rea. It may be useful to identify one of the principles for which the phrase mens rea is used. It is an expositional tool, when used in sentences such as 'the mens rea of X offence is Y', where Y might be intention, recklessness, malice, dishonesty, an intent to defraud or deceive. (A.T.H. Smith) Williams considers intention and recklessness as basic mens rea in that a defendant's responsibility
