It is shown that he intended or was reckless to commit the crime.
It is shown that he intended to commit the crime.
It is shown that he was reckless to commit the crime.
1 of 15
Other questions in this quiz
2. 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
3. 'It was clear from the evidence that D's main aim was to seriously injure a police officer when he accelerated hard at him.'
Woollim 1998
Mohan
Nedrick 1986
DPP v Smith 1961
4. D pushed their v from a bridge knowing he couldn't swim, he fell 25ft and drowned. The trial judge told the jury that death was a virtual certainty & D appreciated this.
Mohan
Woollin 1998
R v Matthews & Alleyne
Nedrick
5. 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.
Comments
No comments have yet been made