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.
Her Majesty The Queen v Chikmaglur Mohan: Citations [1994] 2 SCR 9: Ruling: appeal was allowed and the evidence was excluded. Court membership; Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major: Reasons given ...
Judges normally do not define intention for juries, and the weight of authority is to give it its current meaning in everyday language as directed by the House of Lords in R v Moloney, [1] where can be found references to a number of definitions of intention using subjective and objective tests, and knowledge of consequences of actions or omissions.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
The Rajan case refers to the death of P. Rajan, a student of the Regional Engineering College, Calicut, as a result of torture in local police custody in Kakkayam, Kerala during the nationwide Emergency in India in 1976, and the legal battle that followed, which revealed facts of the incident [1] [2] to the public. His remains are yet to be ...
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 ...
DPP v Majewski [1976] UKHL 2 is a leading English criminal law case, establishing that voluntary intoxication such as by drugs or alcohol is no defence to crimes requiring only basic intent. The mens rea requirement is satisfied by the reckless behaviour of intoxicating oneself.