Ad
related to: specific vs basic intent crimes examples law
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The crime of battery, for example, only requires the basic intent that the actor knew or should have known that his action would lead to harmful contact with the victim. A limited number of offences are defined to require a further element in addition to basic intent, and this additional element is termed specific intent. There are two classes ...
Case law has established that murder, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent, theft, robbery, burglary with intent to steal, handling stolen goods, some forms of criminal damage, and any attempt to commit a crime of specific intent are themselves crimes of specific intent. [11] [12]
A specific intent crime requires the doing of an act coupled with specific intent or objective. Specific intent cannot be inferred from the act. The major specific intent crimes are: conspiracy (intent to have crime completed), attempt (intent to complete a crime – whether specific or not, but falling short in completing the crime),
In 1985, The Law Commission Report on Codification of the Criminal Law proposed the following definition of murder: A person who kills another: (a) intending to kill; or (b) intending to cause serious injury and being aware that he may kill; [or (c) intending to cause fear of death or serious injury and being aware that he may kill]
The court in Heard considered a specific intent one which fitted either possible definition. [5] However, murder is again an exception: it can be committed not by intent but by virtual certainty. [6] Lord Elwyn-Jones also expressed that if a crime could be committed recklessly, it was one of basic intent.
Absent a specific law, an inchoate offense requires that the defendant have the specific intent to commit the underlying crime. For example, for a defendant to be guilty of the inchoate crime of solicitation of murder, he or she must have intended for a person to die. [citation needed] Attempt, [3] conspiracy, [4] and solicitation [5] all ...
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.
For example, getting voluntarily intoxicated and committing actual bodily harm (a crime of basic intent) will result in the defense of intoxication failing, as getting voluntarily intoxicated is viewed as reckless by the courts, which is sufficient for basic intent offenses. Specific intent crimes demand proof of intention, and if the defendant ...