Pages in this set

Page 1

Preview of page 1

Mens rea is the mental element of an offence ­ the `guilty mind'. The only exceptions to mens
rea are strict liability cases. There are different levels of mens rea and to be guilty the defendant
must have at least the minimum level of mens rea required for the offence…

Page 2

Preview of page 2
From the cases of Monoly, Nedrick and Hancock and Shankland the court of appeal
said that it was helpful if the jury considered the following questions when deciding
on a verdict:
1. How probable was the consequence which resulted from D's voluntary act?
2. Did D forsee that consequence?

Page 3

Preview of page 3
In this case because the word maliciously was used the requirement of mens rea was
required. Therefore any piece of law containing the word maliciously would require
the defendant to have mens rea before any conviction can be made. This only works
with recklessness though because if there is intention…

Page 4

Preview of page 4
reasonable man would have acted in the same situation. This is not widely used in
criminal law but is frequently seen in civil law. The only mainstream offence for
which negligence can be a defense is for manslaughter. But even this is only where
there has been an act of…


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »