Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/10

Click to flip

10 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
R v Moloney 1985
D shot/killed his father in response to a drunken challenge.Claimed-had not aimed the gun at the V and had, at the time, no idea that firing it wld cause injuy. The judge directed that intention included both desire and foresight of probable consequences and D-convicted/nurder. Appeal-Man-ter
Hancock and Shankland 1986
HL reaffirmed that foresight of consequences was no more than evidence of intention. Jury shld b directed that the greater probability of a consequence, the more likely that it was foreseen and therefore also intended. But see Woolin.
R v Woolin 1999
D killd his child by throwing him onto a hard surface. Part of judge's direction suggestd tht intention cld b establishd if he reaslisd tht there ws a substantial risk of GBH. Appeal-allowed. Phrase «substantial risk» - misdirection, blurring distinction b/w intention and recklessness. Nedrick approvd.
R v Steane 1947
D convicted f doing acts likely t assist the enemy with intent t do so, having made war-time broadcasts fr the Germans. Appealed-did so t save family. Allowed-actions were consistent with the innocent intention. Motive and intention are diff. concepts.
R v Cunningham 1957
D hd broken into a gas meter t steal the contents. Gas hd escaped, partially suffocating the V. Conviction under s. 23 OAPA quashed – word «maliciously» required proof tht D either intended injury or ws reckless in the sense tht he foresaw tht injury might b caused bt nevertheless went on t take tht risk. Subjective tst for recklessness.
R v Caldwell 1982
D -fire t a hotel-drunk t appreciate risk. Lord Diplock – recklessness-not only recognising a risk and going on t take it bt also failing t give thought t whether there is risk when, if thought was given, it wld b obvious tht there was.
R v Latimer 1886
D intendd t strike a man but accidently struck the woman standing next t him, convicted under s. 20 OAPA. Appeal dismissd «if a person had a malicious intent towards 1 person, an in carrying into effect tht malicious intent he injures another ... he is guilty of what the law considers malice against the person injured.»
R v Pembleton 1874
D aimed a stone at a group of people but it broke a window-guilty-criminal dam. Conviction quashd. No finding tht D was reckless about breaking the window, the intent t strike a person cld nt provide the mens rea for maliciously injuring property. AG's Reference (No 3 of 1994) (1998) – intention t do a particular kind f harm+ tht harm actually dn.
R v Church 1966
D convictd with Man-ter -assaulted V with intent. Believed V was dead-threw body into the river/died from drowning. Appeal dismissd. Series f acts as one course f conduct. Because the 1st act wld establish Man-ter if V hd died, D ws guilty even though he lacked mens rea at the time of doing the act tht causd death.
R v Le Brun 1992
argument-D-hit his wife/uncousnscious. Dragged away-dropped her body/Manslaughter. Appeal dismissed – where there is a time interval between the act done with mens rea (the original assault) and the act that causes death, there may still be a conviction if all the acts are part of the same sequence of events.