Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Intent is defined in English law by the ruling in R v Mohan [1976] QB 1 as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence" (malum prohibitum). [1] [2] [3] A range of words represents shades of intent in criminal laws around the world. The mental element, or mens rea, of murder, for example, was historically called malice aforethought.
Relevance is a question of law and so is determined by the judge. Where it approaches the "ultimate issue" of the trial, the standard for inclusion must be stricter. To be considered necessary, the expert evidence must be outside the likely everyday experience of a judge and jury.
R v Richards [1974] 1 QB 776 accomplice cannot be convicted of worse offence than the main actor even if he has the mens rea for one; Inchoate. Serious Crime Act 2007 ss 44-46; Criminal Law Act 1977 ss 1-5; Criminal Justice Act 1987 s 12 and 1988 s 39; Wai Yu-tsang v R [1992] 1 AC 269; R v Stracusa (1990) 90 Cr App R 340; R v Sadique [2013 ...
In Frankland v The Queen, [3] Lord Ackner held DPP v Smith to be incorrect insofar as it required objective foresight in determining intention of murder, saying that the common law reflected s 8 of the 1967 Act. Given that s8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 now entitles a jury to draw reasonable inferences from all the evidence, Wien J. said ...
In R v Matthews and Alleyne, [4] the Court of Appeal concluded that the Woollin test was an evidential rather than substantial rule of law: judges ought to instruct jurors that they may interpret what they would see as certain knowledge on the defendant's part of the virtually certain consequence of death as evidence of intention, but Woollin ...
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges.It is famous as a legal precedent in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision.
The judgement in R v R was supported by the Law Commission and was later confirmed in statute law by an amendment to the Sexual Offences Act in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which provided a statutory definition of rape (now replaced with section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003).
The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. [1] These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that ...