Mens rea of Murder Intent to kill Or Intent to do GBH INTENT WE CAN DIVIDE THIS INTO 2 TYPES DIRECT INTENT Eg I want to kill someone and I kill them Direct intent is when the outcome of the crime is ID: 548686
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Malice aforethought and Intent" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Malice aforethought and Intent
Mens rea of Murder
Intent to kill
Or
Intent to do GBHSlide2
INTENT
WE CAN DIVIDE THIS INTO 2 TYPES:
DIRECT INTENT
:
Eg
I want to kill someone and I kill them
.
Direct intent is when the outcome of the crime is
the defendant’s purpose or aim.
R v Mohan
-
A driver
of a speeding car accelerated straight towards a policeman trying to stop him. The defendant was
convicted
on a dangerous driving
charge. The
issue of mens rea was raised regarding the attempted ABH by
driving
towards the police man. For the attempt the
specific
intent is
described as…
“
a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the accused’s power , the commission of the offence”
Slide3
INDIRECT OR OBLIQUE INTENT
INDIRECT
INTENT
: ask two questions
Is the outcome a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY?
Does the defendant KNOW this? Slide4
Cases illustrating indirect intent
R v
Nedrick
A man
set fire to house by putting paraffin soaked rag through letter box and setting light to it. Woman’s son died. Judge directed jury wrongly so a verdict of manslaughter was substituted for the conviction for murder. The correct direction was that they could infer intent if the outcome was virtually certain and the defendant knew this.
R v
Woollin
A man
threw his small baby against a hard surface in anger. Again a verdict of manslaughter was substituted as the jury were wrongly directed. Only if the outcome was virtually certain and the defendant knew this could the jury find the defendant had intent.
R v Matthews &
Alleyne
Indirect
intent is evidence for intent but is not intent itself! In this case a group of boys forced a boy off a bridge who could not swim. The prosecution showed they had indirect intent as it was a virtual certainty the boy would drown and they knew this. Slide5
“Transferred Malice”
Where the
actus
reus
are similar – if the outcome is to a different victim to the intended victim the defendant will still be held to have intended that outcome.
R v Latimer
man still guilty of malicious wounding where he hit an unintended victim with his belt in a fight in a pub
R v
Pembliton
man threw a stone at some people but broke a window instead – no transferred malice as criminal damage and harm to a person have different types of
actus
reus
. Not transferred malice where the
actus
reus
differs.
R v Mitchell
man in post office queue argued with another man and pushed him. The man who was pushed fell onto an old lady who suffered a broken hip and later died. The defendant was guilty of the old lady’s unlawful act manslaughter through transferred malice.