Law Cases (2)

Front 1

Mohan

Back 1

motive is not the same as intention e.g. if stealing from rich to give to poor intention is to give poor money but required mens rea for theft is present.

Front 2

Moloney

Back 2

D shot step-father in quick of the draw incident.
>Was death or serious injury natural consequence or D’s act?
>did D foresee consequence as being natural result of act
foresight of c not intention, but evidence of intention

Front 3

Hancock and Shackland

Back 3

Miner dropped lumps of concrete onto road to prevent access to work. Taxi driver killed. The greater the probability of a consequence, more likely the conseq was foreseen, the greater the probability conseq was intended.

Front 4

Nedrick

Back 4

D threw paraffin through letterbox of woman and resulted in child’s death in the fire. Judges thought 2 previous judgements needed to be made clearer. Jurors asked not to infer necessary intention unless sure that death or really serious injury was virtual certainty and d appreciated this.

Front 5

Woolin
(Leading case on intention)

Back 5

Threw baby at pram causing death.
Word infer shouldn't be used as Nedrick suggested but find should be used instead. Jury not entitled to FIND intention unless death or injury was virtual certainty from D’s actions and D appreciated that.’

Front 6

Matthews and alleyne

Back 6

D threw V who couldn’t swim into river and he drowned, judge said if virtual certainty, intention is proved. CoA said its not intention but evidence towards finding intention so from it jury could find intention but they could also not.

Front 7

Cunningham

Back 7

D tore gas meter off to steal money and women next door was affected.

The D must realise that there is a risk of the conseq occurring but decides to take risk anyway.

Front 8

Caldwell

Back 8

Objective recklessness:
held recklessness covers 2 situations: where D realised risk and
Where D hadn't though about possibility of risk but ordinary adult would.

Front 9

G and Another

Back 9

D’s were two boys 11 and 12, set fire to newspaper left it under a wheelie bin and left, thinking it would go out itself, but it set fire to shop. Held D couldn't be guilty if risk wasn't realised by him.

Front 10

Sweet v Parsley

Back 10

Knowledge- D must have knowledge of a certain fact in order to be guilty.

Front 11

Adomako

Back 11

Negligence- Failure to meet the standards of a reasonable man

Front 12

Latimer

Back 12

went to hit man in pub with belt but hit woman. D can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a diff. victim

Mens rea completely diff. D not guilty

Front 13

Thabo meli

Back 13

D’s attacked man and believed him dead. Really he was just unconcious but D pushed his body over cliff and exposure from that killed V, from the series of acts the actus reus and mens rea were formed and D’s were charged with murder

Front 14

Church

Back 14

Similar to Thabo Meli

Front 15

Fagan V MPC

Back 15

told by officer to park by kurb and drove onto policemans foot by accident, then when asked refused to move the car. Once he knew he was on his foot he had mens rea and actus reus was continuing still = GUILTY