CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE MENS REA OF MURDER

CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE MENS REA OF MURDER

In order to try and do this one has to explain what murder and mens rae are and how they work in a criminal context. THE LAW Back in the 1800?s Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, described mens rae and intention,

Check your essay before you submit. See exactly what your professor sees.

See your AI and plagiarism results before your instructor does.Get the exact same report your professor uses. Trusted by 50,000+ students worldwide.

Get Plagiarism Report Humanize My Essay

– If a man did an act, more especially if that were an illegal act, although its immediate purpose might not be to take life, yet if it were such that life was necessarily endangered by it, – if a man did such an act, not with the purpose of taking life, but with the knowledge or belief that life was likely to be sacrificed by it, that was not only murder by the law of England, but by the law of probably every other country.[1] Lord Cook?s classic definition states:

“Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king’s peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law. …………………………….

Smith intended to kill the police officer, but through his actions it was clear that he had intended at the very least, to cause grievous bodily harm which means no more and no less than really serious injury[12], thus fulfilling the criteria for the charge of murder against Smith.

For the offence of murder to be complete, intention does not require premeditation or ill will, as all that has to be proved is either an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm[13]. Although a motive may well be relevant in cases of murder, it does not prove intention[14].

Nedrick[15] and Woollen[16] are the most relevant precedents on the subject of mens rae in murder. In Nedrick[17], D set a house alight, resulting in the death of a child. As the question of his intention was paramount to the case, the question was asked, was death or serious bodily harm a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) ……..

In a particularly topical case of Hull[27] Coffey says: Hull illustrates the importance of