2014 10 06 M6 L2
2014/10/3
Criminal Law
Hanif Mughal
(麥 嘉 豪 )
Adjunct Associate Professor
(
兼任教授)
Barrister-at-law
(
大律師 )
DLS 2
BRIEF - Lecture 2
(A) Principles of Criminal Liability
Chapters 2 and 4 of the Workbook and some additional information
2
Mens Rea consists of :
1.
2.
3.
Intention
Recklessness
Gross Negligence
The crime will specify the kind of mens rea required. 3
1
2014/10/3
(i) Intention
How does the prosecution prove intention?
There can be:
(i) Direct proof; or
(ii) Indirect proof.
can be drawn from conduct of accused.
Irresistible Inferences
4
(i) Direct Intent
- where prohibited consequence is aim, purpose, desire or objective of Accused.
(ii) Oblique Intent
- where prohibited consequence IS NOT aim, purpose or objective BUT is foreseen, as a certain or practically certain result of the actions of the Accused.
(a result can be intended even though not desired or wanted)
5
R v Moloney 1985
- D & stepfather had a shooting contest to see who would load & fire a gun faster.
-
House of Lord laid guidelines on issue of intention:
- What is meant by intent should be left to the good sense of the jury to decide if there was necessary intent
Foresight of consequences is NOT intention but is evidence from which intent can be inferred.
6
2
2014/10/3
R v Nedrick 1986
- D pushed lighted materials through a letterbox to frighten a victim. A fire started.
A child killed in blaze.
HL held: Ds knowledge that people might be injured would be evidence that he intended the consequences if he knew that injury was inevitable. 7
Jury should infer necessary intention if it feels sure that:
- death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certain consequence of D’s conduct and
- D had foresight of it.
8
R v Woollin 1998
- D lost his temper. In frustration he threw his 3month old son onto a hard surface. He died.
HL said: -
Jury should be directed that it can find that such intention existed (to kill or cause GBH) where such is a virtual certainty of D’s actions
Criminal Law
Hanif Mughal
(麥 嘉 豪 )
Adjunct Associate Professor
(
兼任教授)
Barrister-at-law
(
大律師 )
DLS 2
BRIEF - Lecture 2
(A) Principles of Criminal Liability
Chapters 2 and 4 of the Workbook and some additional information
2
Mens Rea consists of :
1.
2.
3.
Intention
Recklessness
Gross Negligence
The crime will specify the kind of mens rea required. 3
1
2014/10/3
(i) Intention
How does the prosecution prove intention?
There can be:
(i) Direct proof; or
(ii) Indirect proof.
can be drawn from conduct of accused.
Irresistible Inferences
4
(i) Direct Intent
- where prohibited consequence is aim, purpose, desire or objective of Accused.
(ii) Oblique Intent
- where prohibited consequence IS NOT aim, purpose or objective BUT is foreseen, as a certain or practically certain result of the actions of the Accused.
(a result can be intended even though not desired or wanted)
5
R v Moloney 1985
- D & stepfather had a shooting contest to see who would load & fire a gun faster.
-
House of Lord laid guidelines on issue of intention:
- What is meant by intent should be left to the good sense of the jury to decide if there was necessary intent
Foresight of consequences is NOT intention but is evidence from which intent can be inferred.
6
2
2014/10/3
R v Nedrick 1986
- D pushed lighted materials through a letterbox to frighten a victim. A fire started.
A child killed in blaze.
HL held: Ds knowledge that people might be injured would be evidence that he intended the consequences if he knew that injury was inevitable. 7
Jury should infer necessary intention if it feels sure that:
- death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certain consequence of D’s conduct and
- D had foresight of it.
8
R v Woollin 1998
- D lost his temper. In frustration he threw his 3month old son onto a hard surface. He died.
HL said: -
Jury should be directed that it can find that such intention existed (to kill or cause GBH) where such is a virtual certainty of D’s actions