Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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 ...
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 ...
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.
Manslaughter, rape, sexual assault, maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, kidnapping and false imprisonment, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault have all been judged crimes of basic intent. Attempting a crime of basic intent may be a crime of basic intent, but this is unclear. [11] [15]
United States, [33] or Coco v The Queen (Australia). [34] However, legislation that is intended to be consistent with fundamental rights can be overridden by clear and unambiguous language. [35] Rule of lenity In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. [36] [37]: 296–302 See ...
The Court must use strict scrutiny if one of these tests, among others, is met: the impact is so "stark and dramatic" as to be unexplainable on non-racial grounds, as in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886); the historical background of the decision suggests intent; the legislative and administrative records leading up to the decision show intent.
Self-induced automatism can always be a defence to crimes of specific intent (such as murder, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent, theft, robbery and burglary). But automatism is no defence to other crimes (i.e. of basic intent , e.g. manslaughter , assault and battery ) if the defendant was reckless in becoming automatismic or ...