Intention In The Case Hyam V DPP (1975)

1780 Words4 Pages

Mens rea refers to the mental element involved in committing a crime and is concerned with the guilty mind of the defendant. Both intent and recklessness are categories of mens rea that are different and have different levels of culpability.

Intention in criminal law is when an individual consciously decides to behave in a particular manner to achieve a certain desired result and in doing so commits a crime. It is the highest form of mens rea as someone who intentionally sets out to commit a criminal offence is typically more culpable then an individual who has behaved in a reckless manner, which has consequently resulted in a crime. Intention can be further split into two categories; these are direct intention and oblique intention.

Direct
The defendant is foresees these consequences, although not desired, will occur as a result of their intended act. Oblique intention can be seen in the case Hyam v DPP (1975). This case resulted in the accused being convicted on two counts of murder. The defendant was a jealous woman who had been romantically involved with a man, Mr Jones who had then gone on to have a relationship with another woman, Ms Booth who he later became engaged to in the spring of 1971. The defendant as a result went to Ms Booth’s home and poured petrol through her letterbox, she then put newspaper, which she set on fire through also. This quickly ignited and the defendant went straight home without alerting anyone to the blaze, which was spreading. Although Ms Booth and her son were able to escape through a window her two daughters perished, as they were asphyiciated by the fumes from the flames, which were engulfing their house as they slept. The defendant argued that she was not guilty of murder as she did not intend on causing harm or killing anyone, she had just wanted to frighten Ms Booth and as a result should only be found guilty of manslaughter. However as she would have been aware of a high probability of serious injury or death and therefore was found guilty of oblique intention. In this case causing harm was not intended but resulted

Show More
Related

  • R. V. Charemski Case Study

    1289 Words  | 3 Pages

    Men rea is used in determining whether an act is considered a crime, and is applied to an act if there is indication that the act was committed with intent or knowledge or a degree of recklessness. The mens era of murder is having malice intentions prior to killing someone, so the person has an intent to murder. The argument that helps support that Martineau did not have the mens rea for murder, is the fact that he did not shoot the couple, and instead it was his friend Tremblay who had fried the pellet pistol. Martineau cannot be held accountable since he had no malice intentions to kill the couple, his intentions were strictly centred with the break and enter, there is no evidence

    Read More

  • Elements Of Crime And The Murder Of Sarah May Ward

    1151 Words  | 3 Pages

    On June 7th 2008, Sarah May Ward was arrested for the murder of Eli Westlake after she ran him over in a motor vehicle in St. Leonards. Prior to the incident the offender had been driving the wrong way down Christine Lane which was a one way street. Whilst this was occurring she was intoxicated, under the influence of marijuana, valium, and ecstasy and was unlicensed to drive. The victim and his brother who were also intoxicated, where walking down the lane and where nearly hit by the offender. This prompted the victim to throw cheese balls at the car and make a few sarcastic remarks regarding her driving ability. After a brief confrontation between the two parties the victim and his brother turned away and proceeded to walk down Lithgow Street. The offender followed the victim into the street and drove into him while he was crossing a driveway.

    Read More

  • Penry V. Lynaugh Case Study

    393 Words  | 1 Pages

    These decisions led to a partial striking down of Texas’s capital punishment statute in 1989. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether a defendant would be a “future danger” to the community did not adequately allow for consideration of the defendant’s mental retardation as a possible mitigating factor. (Penry v. Lynaugh). Some jurors might believe that a defendant like Johnny Penry with a low IQ might be more likely to commit future crimes, perhaps because he could not learn from his mistakes or be deterred by the law. That ruling forced Texas to change the way juries were instructed in death penalty cases. Juries needed to understand that a person’s mental retardation should at least be considered as reason for giving him a life sentence.

    Read More

  • The Three Elements on Why People Commit a Crime

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    First, the first element of a crime is Mens rea. “The mental element is known as the mens rea, or mental state, of the defendant.” (Hames & Ekern, 2009) The prosecution lawyers try to prove if the defendant has knowledge of the crime. What was the defendant’s mental state? Were they aware of the effect of the crime, did the defendant plan the crime, o...

    Read More

  • First Degree Murder Conviction

    881 Words  | 2 Pages

    To plan or deliberate is premeditation. Depending on the circumstances and the person, there must be an amount of time needed to plan and commit murder (actus reas). There must a period of time long enough for the person to form the intent (mens rea) to kill for them to be fully aware in their mind to consider the murder (Lectlaw, 2010).

    Read More

  • The Insanity Defense

    1267 Words  | 3 Pages

    Former U.S president Ronald Reagan was shot by a man named John Hinckley in the year 1981. The president along with many of his entourage survived the shooting despite the heavy infliction of internal and external injuries. The Hinckley case is a classic example of the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' case (NGRI). The criminal justice system under which all men and women are tried holds a concept called mens rea, a Latin phrase that means "state of mind". According to this concept, Hinckley committed his crime oblivious of the wrongfulness of his action. A mentally challenged person, including one with mental retardation, who cannot distinguish between right and wrong is protected and exempted by the court of law from being unfairly punished for his/her crime. (1)

    Read More

  • R v Maglovski

    1614 Words  | 4 Pages

    The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...

    Read More

  • Mala Prohibita Research Paper

    641 Words  | 2 Pages

    Mens rea is Latin for a guilty mind, the specific mental state of the person at the time of the crime. Therefore, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the Mens rea, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element. This begins to stem the belief that an act alone cannot create criminal liability unless it is also accompanied by a guilty state of mind. For example, the act of murder requires the physical action of killing someone but is also accompanied with a malicious mind during the

    Read More

  • Description Of Mental Disorders

    885 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...e jury or judge may fail to realize is that those who suffer a mental disorder lack free will with some of their actions. The most common characteristic seen in those who have mental disorders is the lack of empathy. This lack of empathy plays a role in how gruesome the crimes may be. According to the “men’s rea” no one can be found guilty of a crime if they had no knowledge that their actions were wrong. With the mens rea, the defendant is not required to feel guilty but to know their actions were wrong. If a person cognitive activity is abnormal and they lack empathy due to their mental state how can they be found guilty before the law.

    Read More

  • General Intent Crimes

    312 Words  | 1 Pages

    Specific intent crimes generally require that the offender has intentionally committed and illegal act and intended a certain result when they committed the act (General Intent Crimes vs. Specific Intent Crimes, 2017). For an

    Read More

  • Criminal Law: Actus Reus

    1144 Words  | 3 Pages

    A general intent is the most usual modus operandi for most of the misconducts. Under the general aim, the prosecution requires proving that the offender intended to commit an act in question (Herring, 2014). They are those offenses that have no particular mens rea component in them. The defendant’s act’s results are irrelevant in a general intent crime.

    Read More

  • Direct Intention vs Oblique Intention

    1925 Words  | 4 Pages

    To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.

    Read More

  • Insanity Plea

    1077 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the eyes of the law, a defendant is legally insane if he or she is unable, because of a mental problem, to form a mens rea, a Latin term meaning a guilty mind.# Since the law only punishes people who are mentally responsible for their actions, most states allow juries to find a defendant not guilty if he or she was insane at the time a crime was committed. The insanity defense, states that at the time of the crime the defendant could not decide between right or wrong or could not keep from acting on their impulse, due to mental illness. Each state has its own definition of insanity, but most states fol...

    Read More

  • Automatism, Insanity and Diminished Responsibility

    1568 Words  | 4 Pages

    A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability from a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of said defences. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application.

    Read More

  • The Mythology Of Crime And Criminal Justice

    1146 Words  | 3 Pages

    both the act, or actus rea, and the intent to commit the act, or mens rea.

    Read More

More about Intention In The Case Hyam V DPP (1975)

Open Document