Direct intention = a decision to bring about the commission of an offence no matter whether the def desired the conseq’s of his act or not
1 of 11
Nedrick/Woollin
A jury may find that a def intended an outcome if it was a VC consequence of his actions and he realised this was the case
2 of 11
Cunningham (1957)
The def had foreseen that a particular harm might be done, and has gone on to take the risk of it – HIGH PROB
3 of 11
R v G (2003)
Subj test of recklessness = was the def aware of a risk of the damage/destruction of prop and, in the circums, was it unreasonable for her to take that risk?
4 of 11
Thabo Meli (1954)
Single transaction theory – this was all one series of acts carrying out a preconceived plan of action – they could not be viewed as sep acts – AR and MR were each present during diff parts of the transaction
5 of 11
Church (1966)
Single transaction theory applied where there was no preconceived plan
6 of 11
Le Brun (1991)
Church was applied
7 of 11
Latimer (1986)
The malice (MR) for planned offence must be same as that of resulting offence
8 of 11
Gnango (2011)
Where AR and MR relate to diff types of offences, the doc of transferred malice does not operate
9 of 11
Pembliton (1874)
Whereas def had intended to strike group of people, he had not intended to break the window
10 of 11
A-G’s Ref (1998)
The MR could only be transferred once and a double transfer of intent was not permitted
11 of 11
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
A jury may find that a def intended an outcome if it was a VC consequence of his actions and he realised this was the case
Back
Nedrick/Woollin
Card 3
Front
The def had foreseen that a particular harm might be done, and has gone on to take the risk of it – HIGH PROB
Back
Card 4
Front
Subj test of recklessness = was the def aware of a risk of the damage/destruction of prop and, in the circums, was it unreasonable for her to take that risk?
Back
Card 5
Front
Single transaction theory – this was all one series of acts carrying out a preconceived plan of action – they could not be viewed as sep acts – AR and MR were each present during diff parts of the transaction
Comments
No comments have yet been made