To be liable for an offence, the accused must have committed the Actus Reus of that offence with the requisite Mens Rea, and no defence must be available to him; R v. Taafe (1983).
To be liable for an offence, the accused must have committed the Actus Reus of that offence with the requisite Mens Rea, and no defence must be available to him; R v. Taafe (1983). There are a number of issues involved in the question (including homicide, inchoate offence and non-fatal offence), liability for which should be awarded separately to each person. The Criminal Justice Act (1987), s.12 states conspiracy to be where (a) a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be punished; and (b) that course of conduct will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions. In the case of Albert, Carl, Maurice and Graham, all four, as the question suggests, conspired to steal and to administer noxious substance. For this they will be charged under section 9 of the Theft Act, which proves a person guilty of burglary if he enters any building as a trespasser with intent to steal anything in the building or of inflicting any grievous bodily harm on any person. Even though they were not trespassers, they did intent to steal and for present purposes, it can be assumed that the act of burglary was committed as the question suggest that the conspirators carried out their 'prearranged plan'. As for inflicting GBH, it can be assumed that if all of them were aware of
In this essay it is my intention to evaluate by means of a critical analysis the mens rae of murder.
CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE MENS REA OF MURDER INTRODUCTION In this essay it is my intention to evaluate by means of a critical analysis the mens rae of murder. In order to try and do this one has to explain what murder and mens rae are and how they work in a criminal context. THE LAW Back in the 1800’s Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, described mens rae and intention, - If a man did an act, more especially if that were an illegal act, although its immediate purpose might not be to take life, yet if it were such that life was necessarily endangered by it, - if a man did such an act, not with the purpose of taking life, but with the knowledge or belief that life was likely to be sacrificed by it, that was not only murder by the law of England, but by the law of probably every other country.[1] Lord Cook’s classic definition states: "Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law. Previously the victim had to die a year and a day from the date of the offence, but relatively recent legislation has now changed that.[2] The difference between murder and manslaughter is the state of the persons mind and their intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm at the time of the
representationn of men in mens magazines
05/05/09 A Study into the representation of men in men's magazines. The number of men's magazines, or lads mags, such as FHM, Loaded, Men's Health and GQ have rapidly grown in the past 10 - 15 years. Some argue that these relatively new types of magazines are negative because of the way they are openly sexist against women. The content of many of these 'lifestyle' magazines is very general, which could explain why they appeals to such a wide range. David Sharples states that "In the early to mid 1990's the men's magazine revolution began to take off in response perhaps to the development of women's position in society, and as they fought to change their roles, some men felt pressure to change too". All media texts give a mediated version of reality. Representation is a version of reality, it symbolises something or someone else. A representation is part of the ideology which the producers want to project, and the reaction of the audience to the representation. Groups of people are often represented and become stereotypes, this is through the processes of categorisation, repetition and applying a value judgement. '...as soon as somebody comes along they are categorised in the media and people want to say, "Okay, he fits this concept," or, "This is who he is," and we want to define him immediately and they put a label on you.' Leonardo DiCaprio, FHM April 2003. There
Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.
Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication Intoxication covers the effects of alcohol, drugs or solvents. It is not actually a defence but it does provide a defence in some circumstances if the defendant does not have the required mens rea of the offence. A drunken man can take actions whilst influenced by drugs or drink that he would not have taken if he had been sober, but he cannot raise the defence of intoxication, if he has the capability of forming the required mens rea of the offence. If the defendant had the intention before becoming drunk he will be charged with the offence he committed whilst being drunk. Intoxication is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor of an offence. The law recognises that alcohol or drugs may impair a defendant's power of perception, so he cannot foresee or measure the consequences which may arise from his actions which he would be able to foresee if he was sober, therefore he cannot be plead a defence that he did not have the ability to judge between right and wrong or that he did something whilst being drunk which he would not ever do had he been sober. There are two categories of intoxication, the first of which is voluntary intoxication, this is where the defendant chooses or knowingly takes a substance knowing it will cause him to become intoxicated, this depends on what mens rea is required
How effective was the defence of intoxication?
How effective was the defence of intoxication? Intoxication is the excessive drinking and various forms of drug taking which can be voluntary or involuntary. Intoxication can be a defence depending on whether or not D has the required mens rea. If in an intoxicated state without the required mens rea D may not be guilty. This depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and whether the offence charged was one of specific or basic intent. The absence of mens rea is required otherwise intoxication cannot be a defence as shown in Kingston (1994) 'a drugged intent is still intent'. Even if D lacks the mens rea D can still be found liable which is an exception to the rule that both mens rea and actus reus are required. Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence. If D is so intoxicated he cannot form the mens rea, he may be able to put forward the defence, but normally he will not avoid liability completely, if it is possible to convict him a lesser basic intent offence. If D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence he is not guilty. This rule comes from the case DPP v Beard. D had been charge with murder and pleaded intoxication to deny malice aforethought. From this case it is now accepted that D need not be incapable of forming intent; it is sufficient if they do not in fact do so. However, D
Briefly explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability as a criminal offence
Briefly explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability as a criminal offence (8 marks) Strict liability are offences which require no mens rea. A person can be guilty of the offence by just having the actus reus. This can seem unfair as one may not have the intention to commit the offence but just by having the conduct and consequence is sufficient. For example, in relation to speeding, it is sufficient if one can prove that they are above the speed limit, the intention of speeding is not required. As seen in the case of Larsonneur, the defendant didn't have the intention to return back to the UK, hence there was no mens rea; however, the act of being present in the UK was sufficient for a strict liability offence. Some examples of strict liability offences can include parking and speeding offences, selling unfit food for human consumption, health and safety at work regulations, trade description offences etc. Even though these offences may seem small, they are common as nearly 50% of strict liability cases are taken to court. The type of court would depend on the fine limit; i.e. the Magistrates court would fine up to £5000, however, the Crown court do not have a maximum penalty, but in severe cases, it could lead to imprisonment. The case of Gommon (Hong Kong) LTD V Attorney General for Hong Kong was a House of Lords case. Lord Garmon sets out the
Critically analyse Williams' statement in light of the English Criminal Law on Strict Liability
Jade Chu 204042 LLB 1st Year Criminal Law Dr Prabha Kotiswaran Critically analyse Williams' statement in light of the English Criminal Law on Strict Liability. Glanville Williams's observation on the ambiguities of strict liability appreciates the consequences of conflicting authorities, obfuscating any coherent principle. Strict liability offences are those that do not require the establishment of mens rea as to one of more elements in the actus reus; the defendant may be oblivious to the circumstances or consequences. The words used in a statute can be construed to amount to a strict liability offence depending on the judge's interpretation of these terms, which can evidently result in a conflict of opinions. However such an interpretation is not limited to statutory terms, a number of influential principals are evident. In this critical analysis I will consider the presumption of mens rea and the effects of expressed words on this presumption, illustrating that the interpretation of these terms can be inconsistent. Furthermore I will illustrate the inference of strict liability in relation to the whether the offence is termed to be a 'real' or 'quasi' crime, if the statute provision is of general or special application, degree of social danger of the offence and the severity of the punishment. The majority of strict liability offences are found in statues and
Critically evaluate the meaning of the term
Q: Critically evaluate the meaning of the term "Recklessness" to describe an aspect of Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) and explain how it is currently applied to offences in the English Law System. A: In everyday language, Recklessness means to take an unjustified risk. However, its legal definition is not quite the same. To find out the meaning of Recklessness, careful direction is to be given to the jury. There are tow types of Recklessness, which were named after the cases they were defined in: R v Cunningham (1957), which is the Subjective version of Recklessness and MPC v Caldwell (1982), which is the Objective version of Recklessness. The dictionary meaning of reckless is to be careless, thoughtless, incautious, heedless, unheeding, regardless, daredevil, madcap, wild, irresponsible, unwise, indiscreet, mindless or negligent. Recklessness is a form of Mens Rea (Guilty Mind). Mens Rea is the Latin for 'guilty mind' and traditionally refers to the state of mind of the person committing the crime. The required Mens Rea varies depending on the offence, but there are three main states of mind which separately or together can constitute the necessary Mens Rea of a criminal offence. When discussing Mens Rea, we often refer to the difference between subjective (Cunningham) and objective (Caldwell) tests. Put simply, a subjective test involves looking at what the actual
Explain in detail what actus reus and the chain of causation actually means.
Explain in detail what actus reus and the chain of causation actually means. The term actus reus is Latin for 'the guilty act'. It is essential in criminal law, as actus reus must be there for their to be a criminal offence. It can mean a guilty act or an omission to act. In the crime of murder, then the actus reus would be the killing of a human being. The act must be voluntary for the defendant to be guilty. For example, if the defendant acts out of reflex because of another force, it is not voluntary and the defendant cannot be found guilty. A good example can be found in the case of Hill v Baxter (1958) where a driver is being chased by a swarm of bees and driving a car in these conditions would be extremely hard so could not be held guilty for his actions. If the defendant is to be found guilty of an offence then it is important to prove that the defendant caused the offence in the first place. This is the chain of causation, and means that there must be a clear and unbroken link between the conduct and the consequence. For example, if a defendant attacked a victim and the victim dies then the chain of causation has not been broken and the defendant is guilty of murder. However, if the defendant attacks the victim and the ambulance has a crash on the way to the hospital then the chain of causation has been broken. To see if the defendant is still to be found guilty we
This assessment will be looking at the criminal liability of Alan , Basil , Conrad , Donald and Evelyn.
Criminal law assignment 2003. This assessment will be looking at the criminal liability of Alan , Basil , Conrad , Donald and Evelyn. Alan and Basil criminal liability In order to be liable for a criminal offence mensrea1 and actus rea2 must be present. You are liable for criminal damage if you damage a property that belongs to others. A property can be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporarily impairments of its use or value. In Roe v Kingerlee(1986), the division court held that , graffiti smeared in mud is criminal damage even though it can easily be washed off the reason for this it costs are high and also is time consuming. Therefore Alan and Basil are criminally liable for criminal damage by spraying pigs slay in the local offices. Another authority for this case is R v Henderson & Batley(1984) this case was about dumping waste on a building site that cost £2000 to remove. Clearly Alan and Basil have performed the actus Reus as they committed the offence but we need to find out if mens rea is present. The mens rea is present for Alan because he has the guilty mind. He is guilty of conspiracy with Basil to cause criminal damage to property. In order to find out if Alan is not liable for criminal damage we must look at intention in the case of R v woolin (1998) intention is another form of mens rea. Intention can be divided in to direct intention and
