Criminal Law: Mens Rea in Murder

<p>The jury (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The defendant desires the outcome to happen (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To cause criminal damage and intimidate Frank (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Her voluntary intoxication (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Loss of control (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Devastation (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>That a normal person would react similarly in her situation (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Her sexual orientation and racial origin (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Sex (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Children compared to adults (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The defendant must have lost self-control due to provocation. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It reflects societal expectations of maturity (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It evaluates whether a reasonable person would act similarly. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A 19-year-old stabbing someone for smiling at his girlfriend (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A defendant's level of self-control can be assessed based on their age (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It justified homicides committed in anger. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>DPP v Camplin (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Maturity is more relevant than age (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Emotional stability (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Substance abuse (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It created uncertainty about the reasonable person standard. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Age (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Women might experience threats differently, affecting self-restraint (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The ruling allowed for the inclusion of psychological characteristics. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Subjective and objective tests. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Serious violence (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A sudden and temporary loss of self-control leading to harmful acts. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The definition and criteria for the provocation defense. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It signifies an impairment that is important or weighty. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The ability to understand their conduct. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Impairment must be substantial, not trivial or minimal. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A person who thinks they are playing a video game. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The impairment should be a mere misunderstanding. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Self-control must be substantially impaired. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>R v Golds (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The degree of impairment based on all evidence. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>He was under the illusion that he was being targeted by security services. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

The guilty mind - the mental state of the accused at the time of the crime. For murder, it must be proven that the defendant intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

A deliberate and conscious decision to bring about a specific outcome. It's about the defendant's aim, purpose, or goal.

The defendant's primary aim wasn't the crime, but they foresaw the outcome as practically certain to happen. This is a less direct form of intention.

The defendant's conduct is reckless if they were aware of a risk of harm occurring and went ahead with their actions anyway.

The defendant's behavior needs to be either intentional or reckless.

Being aware of a risk of harm and going ahead with your actions anyway, even though you're not intentionally causing harm.

Applying a higher standard of intent for murder, where just causing harm isn't enough – the intention must be to kill.

A reduction of a charge from murder to manslaughter due to mental impairment.

The impairment must be 'more than trivial or minimal'.

The Supreme Court defined 'substantial' as 'important or weighty'.

It means the impact on the defendant's mental abilities must be severe enough to be a key factor in their crime.

Understanding the nature of their conduct.

Forming a rational judgment about their actions.

Exercising self-control over their impulses.

Stefan believes that he can bring victims back to life, like in his computer games.

Stefan believes the postman is an MI5 agent trying to question him.

This defence can be used when a person unlawfully kills another due to a loss of control triggered by a qualifying trigger, such as fear of serious violence or a serious provocation, and a normal person with the same characteristics might have reacted similarly.

The defendant's characteristics and circumstances are taken into account to determine whether a 'normal' person would have reacted similarly to the provocation. This includes factors like age, gender, and any relevant personal experiences.

The 'normal person' is someone with the same characteristics as the defendant, including their sexual orientation and ethnicity.

The defendant's reaction must be one that a normal person with the same characteristics might have had. If the reaction is considered excessive and unreasonable, the defence is likely to fail.

The defendant's actions must be caused by the loss of control. The trigger must directly lead to the violence.

A factor considered in assessing Loss of Control, where the defendant's sex is taken into account.

The argument that women are more likely to be fearful of violence due to their physical vulnerability and this may affect their self-control.

A factor considered in assessing Loss of Control, where the defendant's age is taken into account.

The principle that people should be held to the standards of a 'normal' person of their age.

The argument that maturity is a better indicator of self-control than simply age.

An example demonstrating how a young man's anger and lack of self-control could lead to a failed Loss of Control defence.

An example demonstrating how a teenage girl's history of abuse and a violent reaction may lead to a successful Loss of Control defence.

The 'Loss of Control' defence requires the trigger to be a qualifying trigger for the defence to succeed.

The defence of 'Loss of Control' requires the circumstances to be sufficiently grave to warrant a loss of control.

A partial defense to murder that used to be a common law defense, but was later codified by section 3 of the Homicide Act (1957). The defense was based on the idea that a person who was provoked into losing their self-control might be considered less culpable for the crime.

A key element of proving the defense of provocation. This test asks whether the defendant was so provoked by the actions or words of another person that they lost their self-control.

Another key element of proving the defense of provocation. The question is, would a reasonable person, in the same circumstances as the defendant, have lost their self-control and acted the way that the defendant did?

A test that evaluates whether the provocation was so severe as to make a reasonable person lose their self-control and act in a similar way. This part of the provocation defense was frequently debated in court.

A controversial case that involved the objective test of provocation. The court suggested that juries should consider any characteristics of the defendant when deciding how a reasonable person would have reacted.

A case involving the reasonable person test in provocation. The court stated that the reasonable person should be the same sex and age as the defendant.

The Government's proposal, arguing that the defense of provocation was too easily used in situations where defendants killed in anger, and that the complexities around the objective test had to be addressed.

A key factor in the Loss of Control Defense. This term suggests that the defendant's actions must be a direct result of losing their self-control.

A major factor in the Loss of Control Defense. This test asks what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances as the defendant.