Other questions in this quiz

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

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

3. 'It is necessary for the judge to direct the jury that they may only find an I to kill or do serious bodily harm if they are satisfied that: - Death or serious bodily harm was a v.c - D appreciated that death or serious bodily harm was a v.c

  • Lord Steyn
  • Lord Mance
  • Lord Denning

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. D was driving his car, was ordered to stop by a policeman. He failed to do this so the policeman jumped on the bonnet of his car, D swerves and sped off to avoid the policeman, he was thrown off and killed.

  • Nedrick 1986
  • Woollin 1998
  • DPP v Smith 1961
  • R v Matthews & Alleyne 2003

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Mens Rea resources »