Other questions in this quiz

2. 'It was clear from the evidence that D's main aim was to seriously injure a police officer when he accelerated hard at him.'

  • Nedrick 1986
  • Mohan
  • DPP v Smith 1961
  • Woollim 1998

3. DPP v Smith was criticised by the Law Commission as -

  • D could not have foreseen what would have happened
  • D had no intention
  • looking at it from a reasonable man's POV ignores what the D see's
  • looking at it from the D's POV ignores what a reasonable man would have seen

4. The CJA 1967 s.8 - 2 things were made clear in this:

  • Intention in criminal cases should be assessed subjectively (the jury must decide what the actual D I or foresaw). AND. If D can foresee the consequence, this is only evidence that D I the consequence, it does not mean he I the consequence.
  • Recklessness in criminal cases should be assessed subjectively (the jury must decide what the actual D I or foresaw). AND. If D cannot foresee the consequence, this is only evidence that D I the consequence, it does not mean he I the consequence.

5. Killed 3 month old son, threw him against a wall & fractured his skull - died. Claimed real intention was to stop the baby's crying, not to kill.

  • R v Matthews & Alleyne 2003
  • Woollin 1998
  • Nedrick 1986
  • Mohan

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Mens Rea resources »