Oblique Intent In Common Law

In December of 1674, John Sassamon set off to, allegedly, warn Governor Josiah Winslow that, “the Wampanag sachem (New England Indian hereditary leader) King Philip […] was preparing for war against the English settlers” (p. 1). Unfortunately, Sassamon did not return from his journey and, on January 29, 1675, was found dead in an icy pound with his “hat, a gun, and a brace of ducks” nearby (p. 1). On March 1, 1675, three Wampanoag Indians – Tobias, Mattashunnamo, and Wampapaquan – were indicted for Sassamon’s murder (p. 100). Based on New England’s legal system, Tobias, Mattashunnamo, and Wampapaquan did receive a fair trial in that the case was tried in a General Court, and not dealt with privately between the Indian groups as was customary (p. 103). Although the New England Indians felt that law and justice were, “a personal and clam mater and did not involve a third party of an impersonal public institution or ‘state’” (p. 67), the law of England defined murder as, “an offence against the state, not a private matter between two groups of people” (p. 70), thus the jurisdiction of the General Court was fair to the defendant’s case.

On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder. Both men were successful in their appeals as a verdict of guilty could not be settled upon as the case was based on improbabilities and circumstantial evidence that could not lead to a definite

The mens rea is the mental element of an offence. It refers to the mental state of the accused in terms of the offence. If no mens rea is present the accused cannot be convicted with the exception of absolute or strict liability. In order for a person to be guilty of a specific crime it is expected that the defendant has the necessary mens rea.(4)

If a defendant commits an act with an aim in mind, and he succeeds in it, it can be said that he directly intended this consequence, and therefore, has direct intent. For an example, in the case of R v White [1910] 2 KB 124 , defendant put cyanide into his mother’s lemonade drink, but she died of heart failure before the poison could kill her. This shows the

Here a compensation tribunal was set up to compensate the families of victims who had died in the Stardust tragedy. The grieving father of one victim sought a review of a decision made by the tribunal to award the mother of a victim compensation and the father no compensation. The court refused to quash the decision of the tribunal and, strangely, agreed that there were circumstances which justified awarding of compensation to one parent and not the other. This decision was made by a court which was quite critical of the approach taken by Lord Diplock in GCHQ. Henchy J. said he would be ‘slow to test reasonableness by seeing if it accords with logic’ and would be ‘equally slow’ to accept the moral standard criteria believing it a vague and inconsistent principle to base reasonableness on. Henchy J. stated the test of reasonableness as ‘whether the impugned decision plainly and unambiguously flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense . Despite Henchy J. being critical of GCHQ, his test has been applied strictly in Ireland on policy grounds . In Stroker , a garda was dismissed following a sworn inquiry for bringing An Gardaí Síochana into disrepute. The applicant claimed his dismissal was unreasonable in relation to the alleged offenses. The court held that the decision of the commissioner to dismiss did not fly in the face of

Many people have disregarded the fact that children too can commit despicable crimes; crimes that not even adults would think about committing. Juveniles have had their era in in being able to manipulating courts to give them a lighter sentences for their so-called “mistakes”. These juveniles have made puerile excuses to try and exonerate their actions by blaming their impulses, rather than taking accountability for them. Juveniles should be tried as adults due to being aware of their crimes and having an intention to kill, however, brain development and maturity can play a role into the reason why teens kill. With being tried as an adult juveniles should be granted the opportunity of freedom pending on their rehabilitation status and if requirements

Police powers, defined in state and Commonwealth legislation, are accompanied by responsibilities which effectively gives rise to a compromise between the right of an individual to personal liberty and ‘the obligation of police to investigate possible breaches of the criminal law’. In Bulsey, the concept of ‘reasonable suspicion’ was discussed and it can be seen that ‘reasonable suspicion’ acted as a control measure; it ensured the police were held liable for their actions when it was proven that they did not have reasonable suspicion. Goldie v Commonwealth defined ‘reasonable suspicion’ as ‘somewhere on a spectrum between certainty and irrationality’ and stressed that to prevent arbitrary use of power, ‘reasonable suspicion’ should lie far from irrationality. However, in 2010, there were proposed changes to certain states’ legislation where ‘reasonable suspicion’ was no longer a requirement for conducting a search. This represented a direct threat to the rule of law, as there was now a potential for arbitrary use of power. On a larger scale, it represented the risk of government bodies exercising arbitrary

To measure if justice was achieved, the case must be reviewed with the three main characteristics of justice, Was it fair? Was it equal? Did both parties have equal access? with further analysis of the back story, charges and both parties cases considered with the characteristics of Justice an educated decision can be made whether the case R v Loveridge [2013] NSWSC 1638, achieved Justice

This is seen as being effective as it is promoting the need to change existing sexual consent laws hopefully in order to achieve justice. This also highlight responsiveness of the government to responding to issues of the legal system regarding the NSW sexual consent laws. Another effectieve part of the legal system seen in this case is enforceability of the sexual consent laws. Although Mr Lazarus did undertake rape “without consent” he truly believed that Ms Mullins gave consent which according to the NSW sexual consent law stating that the accused must know the victim is not consenting is technically proof of enforceability of the law by Mr Lazard as he believed she gave consent. This case showed the effectiveness of protecting individual rights to a fair hearing as they allowed Mr Lazarus and Ms Millins to conduct a fair trial under section 24 of the Charter. This case also shows the effectiveness of the legal system in protecting individuals rights to not be tried or punished more than once under section 26. This is shown as the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions had urged that it would be oppressive as he already served 11 months of his sentence therefore the acquittal remained the

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused.

Relevant facts: Ryan was in an abusive relationship with her husband, who repeatedly threatened her and her daughter with death and bodily harm [p4]. Due to the threats, Ryan believed that her husband would ultimately kill her and her daughter, if she did not take action to kill him first [p4]. Ryan hired multiple hit men, the final being an undercover RCMP officer who agreed to help [p5]. Ryan was charged under s. 464(a) of the Criminal Code with counselling the commission of an offense [p5]. However, Ryan stated her husband threatened her on multiple occasions and that killing her husband was the only rational solution [4]. Ryan used the defense of duress to excuse her actions [pg2].

What are the causes of wrongful convictions? Criminal law examines why there are many wrongful convictions and the causes to them. Theories has shown that wrongful convictions have revealed disturbing fissures and trends in the criminal justice system. Other theories indicates that an overlapping array of contributing factors has emerged; from mistakes to misconduct to factors of race and class. The state’s obligation to do more to correct wrongful convictions is in proportion to the rate at which they are currently allowed to occur. But our knowledge of the frequency of wrongful convictions is inevitably limited. The criminal standard of proof is demanding, but absolute certainty is unachievable and not required (Hammer 2014). Some risk of

Consent can be defined as voluntary agreement, compliance or permission. Consent is a unilateral act, and so consent may be withdrawn by one person. People are allowed to “waive their legal rights” if they choose to do so. This would mean that the victim, by consenting to suffer harm, excuses the wrongful conduct of the person who has inflicted the harm and thereby excuses him/her of being held liable. The principle of volenti non fit iniuria applies, he who consents cannot be harmed.

I will be explaining through the seven elements of crime whether illegal drug use, prostitution, and gambling fit the elements (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The seven elements of the crime are harm, legality, actus reus, mens rea, causation, concurrence, and punishment.

The decision in R v Caldwell was reached through interpretation of Criminal Offences Act 1971 . The interpretation of this act was that recklessness was lacking foresight for their act and resulting consequences. This meant that recklessness was established as an objective test. The reasonable person would have seen the risk that the defendant did not, due to their intoxication, so the conviction for aggravated criminal damage was upheld. Whilst seen as unfair and rigid, the test was universal and accounted for no factors or bias due to its strict nature. This decision was made because there was seen a need for new test regarding the meaning of ‘reckless’ when it was encountered