100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Laws 1014 Mens Rea Notes £9.83
Add to cart

Lecture notes

Laws 1014 Mens Rea Notes

 10 views  0 purchase

This is a comprehensive and detailed note on Mens Rea for Law 1014. Essential!! To your success in Southampton!!

Preview 1 out of 2  pages

  • August 2, 2024
  • 2
  • 2016/2017
  • Lecture notes
  • Prof. gurnham
  • All classes
All documents for this subject (6)
avatar-seller
anyiamgeorge19
2/11/16 850424 Telford


Mens Rea

Recklessness: knowingly taking a risk.
Gross negligence: really badly not living up to an expected standard.

Hierarchy of mens rea terms:
Intention - Knowledge/Belief
Recklessness
Gross negligence
Negligence
Strict Liability

Intention
Important! Some offences, only proof of intent will suffice and type will determine punishment.

Direct Intent

Professor Anthony Duff’s success/failure test:
- Would the defendant regard himself as having failed the result did not occur?
- If so, then he directly intended that result
[From Duff (1990), Intention Agency and Criminal Liability, p61.]

Oblique intent

Woollin [1999] AC 82
If death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s actions and the latter
appreciated that such was the case, then the jury are entitled (but not obliged) to find the
defendant (obliquely) intended death of serious bodily harm.

Recklessness
‘Maliciousness’ used in statutes before (too uncertain). It became: ‘intention to cause harm’ or
‘recklessness.

Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 CCA
Semi-detached house. Pulled gas meter off wall for pennies: gas escaped through house: Old
woman partially asphyxiated.

Cunningham recklessness
(1) Foresight of the risk
(2) The decision to take the risk
(3) The risk taking was unjustified

Doctor performing very risky operation on a seriously injured patient. If he doesn’t, patient will die
and if he does, patient might die but might be saved. Is the risk a justifiable one to take?
Justifiable risk so not reckless.

Briggs [1977] 1 WLR 605 CA
Statute was issue. CA said the intention of drafters was to give ‘recklessness’ the Cunningham
meaning. Therefore, prosecution had to prove that D had a foresight of the risk and still acted.




1

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller anyiamgeorge19. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £9.83. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

53340 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£9.83
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added