Criminal Law

`In criminal law, the conventional method of assessing whether a person is guilty of an offence is to analyse both the actus reus element along with the mens rea. Authors such as Andrew Ashworth have noted that more requirements are needed to capture all the elements of an offence , whereas Glanville Williams has suggested that only the traditional two are needed . The actus reus is quite simply the act itself: what the defendant is thought to have done, and the mens rea or mental aspect of the crime under which the defendant is found to have intended the crime, or alternatively by being reckless or negligent...

It is important to consider the difference between intention and foresight as finding one as oppose to other will have different penalties attached to it. In the case of Hyam v DPP , it was established that intention was to be distinguished from foresight. This was followed in two other cases decided by the House of Lords . Where intent is found, Section 18 will apply, as oppose to Section 20 , the lesser of the two in terms of punishment where there is no intent. Furthermore, it is valid to note that the judges believed that although there was a difference, it was evidence from which the jury could infer or find intention...

This direction to the jury will often always be limited in the sense that the judge will not give further direction in normal cases. In a small minority of cases however, further direction might be needed which brings us on to the case of Nedrick ; here it was held that normally the jury may infer the necessary intention if they feel sure that a consequence was a virtual certainty of the defendant's actions. This led onto the case of Woolin and the virtual certainty test which states that if the results of the defendant's act were virtually certain and he realised this, then the jury is entitled to find that he intended the result. In the above case it is stated that Jason saw injury to others as 'extremely likely'; it will be up to the jury to decide whether this equates to virtual certainty. Recklessness is distinguished from intention in that there is foresight that certain results may occur due to the defendant's actions, but there is no desire to produce those consequences.`