Level 3 Level 5
14 words 0 ignored
Ready to learn Ready to review
Check the boxes below to ignore/unignore words, then click save at the bottom. Ignored words will never appear in any learning session.
Specific Intent Crimes (SIC)
"Red" crimes which require a mens rea of either oblique or direct intent to establish criminal liability.
Where D desires the consequences of his actions, e.g. shoot to kill.
This case regards specific intent, and therefore can be used for any SIC crime, e.g. murder, s.18, voluntary manslaughter, etc. Defines intent, as follows: "a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within [D's] power, the commission of the offence which it is alleged [D] attempted to commit, no matter whether [D] desired that consequence of his act or not".
D arrested during war time. He was ordered to read out news daily. Asserted he had no intention of assisting the enemy. D's conviction overturned, and he was allowed to go free.
D does not desire the consequences, however they were a 'virtually certain outcome' of D's actions.
"Handy Man, Handy Nan, Willy Wonka Makes Sweets" - a string of judicial decisions (mainly cases with one statute) which developed the concept of oblique intent.
Authority case in this area - D set woman's house on fire, child died as a result. D appealed on the grounds of a mis-direction of the jury by the judge. Held that death or serious injury must be a virtual certainty, AND D realised this.
Leading case in this area - D killed his 3 month old son by throwing him against wall - as judge misdirected jury by using the phrase 'substantial risk' (refers to recklessness) instead of 'virtual certainty'. HoL reversed court's decision, quashed D's murder conviction and replaced it with manslaughter.
Matthews and Alleyne
Ds appealed against their conviction for murder following the death of a young man (a non-swimmer) whom they had (having burgled) thrown from a bridge into a river. CA affirmed the conviction saying it wasn't unsafe in light of the evidence, but expressed concern that the Nedrick/Woollin evidential rule should not be treated as if it were a rule of law. D's foresight of virtually certain death does not automatically require the jury to find that he intended that result: it is merely evidence from which the jury may infer intent.
Basic Intent Crimes (BIC)
"Green" crimes which must prove a mens rea of either unlawful intent or recklessness for liability.
Unlawful intent by D.
D is aware of an unjustified risk, but goes ahead anyway.
D ripped gas meter off wall to steal money inside, leaving a ruptured pipe. This pipe leaked gas which seeped into the neighbouring house, where V inhaled it. Test for subjective recklessness is established by this case.
"Is the individual aware of the risk?" This differs from objective recklessness, which asks if whether a "reasonable man" would know of the risk.