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.
Criminal Law Revision Committee of England and Wales, Offences Against the Person Cmnd 7844, 14th Report, (1980) The Law Commission of England and Wales, Codification of the Criminal Law, Law Commission Report No. 143, (1985) Norrie, A., Oblique Intent and Legal Politics, (1989) CLR 793. Pedain, A., Intention and the Terrorist Example, (2003 ...
Preterintention is specified in Article 43 of the Code as a third culpable state of mind alongside negligence and intent, but preterintentional homicide is the only preterintentional crime defined in the Code. [52] In Dutch criminal law, preterintentional crimes include lethal injury, art. 302 s.2 DPC. [53]
Case history; Prior: Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Holding; Mere omission of any mention of intent from the criminal statute was not to be construed as the elimination of that element from the crimes denounced, and that where intent was an element of the crime charged, its existence was a question of fact to be determined by the jury.
The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea ('guilty mind'), which means the mental state shows liability which is enforced by law as an element of a crime. [3] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have ...
In United States criminal law, transferred intent is sometimes explained by stating that "the intent follows the bullet". [citation needed] That is, the intent to kill a person by gunshot would still apply even if the bullet kills an unintended victim (see mens rea). [citation needed]
R v Nedrick [1986] EWCA Crim 2 is an English criminal law case dealing with mens rea in murder. The case is a cornerstone as it sets down the "virtual certainty test". It applies wherever a form of indirect (oblique) intention is apparent and the charge is one of murder, or other very specific intent.
Oxford v Moss (1979) is an English criminal law case, dealing with theft of intangible property: information.A divisional court of High Court, to whom the legal question of the taking of a proof (final draft) exam paper was referred by magistrates, and which is not one of binding precedent, ruled that information could not be deemed to be intangible property and therefore was incapable of ...