DOCSLIB.ORG

Principles of Criminal Liability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Principles of Criminal Liability Criminal Law G153 PPRINCIPLES OF CCRIMINAL LLIABILITY 22:: Mens Rea By the end of this unit, you will be able to: Explain what is meant by the term ‘mens rea’ and illustrate your explanation with cases Understand what is meant by the terms: o Direct intent, o Oblique intent, o Specific & basic intent. Explain the current legal test for recklessness, and understand how the test evolved. Explain the scope of the doctrine of transferred malice and how the courts have developed the concept of coincidence. You will also be able to evaluate: The development of the law on oblique intent and the proposals for reforming it. The limitations of the doctrines of coincidence and transferred malice. Homework During this unit, you will be set the following. In completing homework, you will be expected to do your own research and supplement your own notes. This is essential to show understanding. 1. Complete Homework Sheet (2) 2. Complete Case Cards for Actus Reus and Mens Rea. End of Unit Assessment As with AS, you will sit a DRAG test on elements, but this will be done at the end of this unit. You will also complete the following problem question (from Part B of the exam), which we will plan in lesson time, and you will then write up in timed circumstances as your termly assessment. Wayne belongs to a terrorist organisation. He telephones the police to say that he has placed a bomb in a van on Westminster Bridge and confirms that it is timed to explode in fifteen minutes. The police telephone operator mistakenly thinks that Wayne has said 'fifty minutes' and immediately communicates this information to his superior officer. The bridge is closed and people and vehicles are cleared within ten minutes leaving only one van with no driver. Fifteen minutes after the original telephone call, Martin, a bomb disposal expert approaches the van wrongly believing that the bomb will not explode for at least thirty minutes but is killed instantly when the bomb explodes. Wayne claims that he was only trying to cause disruption and that he never wanted to harm anyone. Consider Wayne's potential liability for the death of Martin. [50] Jan09 1 Criminal Law G153 Mens Rea Mens rea literally means ‘guilty mind’. The concept comes from the latin phrase: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. This means . It is the most important element in allocating blame and justifying any future punishment and generally refers to Ds state of mind at the time of the offence. It is often called the fault element of the crime, and each crime may have more than one element of MR. What do I mean by this? Well remember the offence of theft? MR Element One: MR Element Two: [Remember that the prosecution is under a burden to prove the elements of the MR beyond reasonable doubt.] I am fed up with no homework being handed in on time, and throw my file intending to scare Bob, but miss, and hit Harry, knocking him through the window and onto the tennis courts. He dies as a result. Do I have the ‘guilty mind’ for the murder? Not all crimes require the same level of fault. MURDER MANSLAUGHTER Mens Rea: Why is there a difference between the two mens reas? 2 Criminal Law G153 There is a ‘sliding scale’ of mens rea as written below. Intention What do you think is the difference between Recklessness these? Negligence Strict Liability. Where do you think motive fits in to the concept of Mens rea? R v Steane 1947 (CA) Facts: Ratio: 3 Criminal Law G153 Types of Mens Rea The two main types of MR that we will be concentrating on will be intention and recklessness 1. Intention What do you think intention is? Using your own words, define it below. This is the most blameworthy of the types of MR. In law, there are four different types of intention: Specific, oblique, basic and direct. Direct Intent [or Express] Simply put, this means you foresee and intend the consequence which occurs. e.g. I pull a gun, point it at you and say, “You’re dead.” I then pull the trigger. Do I intend to kill you? This is found in the majority of cases. We might describe this as a , , , or . It is the most straightforward of the four. The test for intent is subjective. This means that it is based on what D, in those circumstances thought, not what the reasonable person would think. R v Mohan 1975 Facts: Ratio: “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused power( the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not” Oblique Intent *This is a complicated area, and can be a popular part A question* This really only applies to the cases of murder and manslaughter. Oblique intent is used if there is no direct evidence of D’s intent to kill or commit GBH. Normally this means that we have to look at the evidence to figure out intent, and is (realistically) very few cases. So what do we mean? What if D intends a consequence, but as a result of his actions V dies. Is he liable for V’s murder? Well, the answer hinges on whether the death was foreseeable and indeed, just how foreseeable something is! 4 Criminal Law G153 SCENARIO: What if I am sick of a pupil and decide to blow up E52, knowing that the student will be in there during lesson time. The classroom blows up, killing the rest of the class as well. Did I intend to kill the others? What argument could you make to justify my intent, and therefore ensure that I am found guilty? Now, here is the first time that you will really get to know the assessment objectives at A2. For AO1, you will need to know the cases, their facts, ratios etc. However, for AO2, particularly in Part A Essay questions, you will need to be able to evaluate and debate the development of the law, and potential proposals for reform. DPP v Smith (1961) FACTS: LAW: D involved in a robbery, V was a policeman and tried to stop him by clinging to the bonnet. He was shaken off into the path of another vehicle and killed. D was charged with murder. Was he guilty? Smith was hung, but this was a very unpopular decision. However, the House of Lords could not overrule the case [Why? ] so the government passed the Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.8 which describes what would be sufficient for ‘proof of intent’. A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence: a. shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions: but b. shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences as appear proper in the circumstances. 1. What would D have to show to ensure that he did not have the intention? 2. Whose decision is it? 5 Criminal Law G153 3. What will they use to help them make a decision on intent? The rest of the cases really revolve around what this section of the law actually means, and particularly the word “foresee” – how far do you have to foresee something for that to be evidience of intention? This concept is known as foresight of consequences and has caused the courts a (little) difficulty over the years. Look at the grid below. At what point would you say that D has enough foresight of consequences to form an intent? Impossible Unlikely Possible? Probable Highly Virtually Certain Probable Certain Look at the following. Which degree of foresight is described in each situation? Put the number in the relevant box. 1. A man fires a shotgun out of the window of a remote farmhouse 2. A man fires a shotgun which he is holding directly at the head of his victim 3. A man fires a shotgun out of the window of a shop in the high street 4. A man fires a shotgun in the direction of a bus queue twenty feet away 5. A man fires a shotgun into the air on the moon (no other astronauts around) 6. A man fires a shotgun at the head of someone stood in his doorway. 7. A man fires a shotgun at a bus queue six foot away. Hyam v DPP (1975) FACTS: LAW: D set fire to a house, killing The court said the test for foresight was: D must have foreseen that death or children inside. She only GBH was a highly probable result. intended to scare. 6 Criminal Law G153 What do you think? How might you develop your AO2 in critical comment with this case? What happened next....? R v Moloney (1985) FACT: LAW: The House of Lords ruled that foresight of the consequences is only evidence of intention. (It is not enough to form intention in its own right) and the probability must be overwhelming This next section has been overruled by later cases Bridge LJ set down a two stage test (to decide whether consequences were foreseen) to be put before juries: 1. Was death or really serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant’s act? and 2. Did D foresee that consequence as being a natural result of his act? 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RE-VISITING the FRAUD ACT 2006 – a STEP TOO FAR? Hannah Willcocks
    RE-VISITING THE FRAUD ACT 2006 – A STEP TOO FAR? Hannah Willcocks Brought into force on 15th January 2007,1 the Fraud Act 2006 (‘the Act’) has now been part of the criminal law of England and Wales for over 12 years. Through the introduction of a new general offence of fraud, its aim was to improve the law by making it: a. more comprehensible to juries, especially in serious fraud trials; b. a useful tool in effective prosecutions; c. simpler and therefore fairer; and d. more flexible so able to encompass all forms of fraud 2 and “deal with developing technology”.3 Following the Act’s implementation, it has generally4 been accepted5 that the Act has managed to overcome the vast majority of the difficulties previously encountered with the old offences of deception.6 In 2012, in its Post-Legislative Assessment of the Fraud Act 2006, the Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’) concluded that the aims and objectives of the 1 The Fraud Act 2006 (Commencement) Order 2006 (SI 2006/3200). 2 Law Commission, Fraud (Law Com No 276, Cm 5560, 2002), para 1.6. 3 Home Office, Fraud Law Reform: Consultation on Proposals for Legislation (2004) p. 5. 4 For a contrary view see Anthony Arlidge QC, Jonathan Fisher QC, Alexander Milne QC and Polly Sprenger, Arlidge and Parry on Fraud (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2016) 44, para 3-005. 5 See e.g. Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law, Theory and Doctrine (5th edn, Hart Publishing Ltd 2013) 610; Andrew Ashworth & Jeremy Horder, Principles of Criminal Law (7th edn, Oxford University Press 2013) 405; Carol Withey ‘The Fraud Act 2006 – some early observations and comparisons with the former law’ (2007) 71(3) Journal of Criminal Law, 220 – 237, 228 – 236; Nicholas Yeo, ‘Bull’s-Eye’, 157 NLJ 212 & 418.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 25, 2016 D Nott-Law Jnl25 Cover Nott-Law Cv 25/07/2016 13:18 Page 2
    d_Nott-law jnl25_cover_Nott-Law_cv 25/07/2016 13:18 Page 1 N O T T I N In this issue: G H A M L Helen O’Nions A EDITORIAL W J O U R N A ARTICLES L How Many Contracts in an Auction Sale? James Brown and Mark Pawlowski NOTTINGHAM LAW JOURNAL The Legal Prospective Force of Constitutional Courts Decisions: Reflections from the Constitutional Jurisprudence of Kosovo and Beyond Visar Morina Journal of Nottingham Law School Don’t Take Away My Break-Away: Balancing Regulatory and Commercial Interests in Sport Simon Boyes The Creative Identity and Intellectual Property Janice Denoncourt THEMATIC ARTICLES: PERSPECTIVES ON THE ISLAMIC FACE VEIL Introduction Tom Lewis Articles S.A.S v France : A Reality Check Eva Brems Human Rights, Identity and the Legal Regulation of Dress Jill Marshall No Face Veils in Court Felicity Gerry QC Face Veils and the Law: A Critical Reflection Samantha Knights The Veiled Lodger – A Reflection on the Status of R v D Jeremy Robson Why the Veil Should be Repudiated* Yasmin Alibhai-Brown 2 0 1 6 *Extract from Refusing the Veil, 2014. Published with kind permission of Biteback V Publishing, London. O L U Continued on inside back cover M E T W E N Nottingham Law School T The Nottingham Trent University Y Burton Street F I V Nottingham E NG1 4BU England £30.00 Volume 25, 2016 d_Nott-law jnl25_cover_Nott-Law_cv 25/07/2016 13:18 Page 2 Continued from outside back cover Book Reviews E Brems (ed.) The Experiences of Face Veil Wearers in Europe and the Law Cambridge University Press, 2014 Amal Ali Jill Marshall Human Rights Law and Personal Identity Routledge, 2014 Tom Lewis CASE NOTES AND COMMENTARY Killing the Parasite in R v Jogee Catarina Sjolin-Knight Disputing the Indisputable: Genocide Denial and Freedom of Expression in Perinçek v Switzerland Luigi Daniele Innocent Dissemination: The Type of Knowledge Concerned in Shen, Solina Holly v SEEC Media Group Limited S.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Dolus Eventualis in South African Criminal Law
    THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF DOLUS EVENTUALIS IN SOUTH AFRICAN CRIMINAL LAW by LINUS TAMBU AWA Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF LAWS in the subject Criminal and Procedural Law at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: PROF NINA MOLLEMA NOVEMBER 2019 i Table of Contents Page DECLARATION .......................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... vi DEDICATION ............................................................................................................ vii SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... viii KEY WORDS ............................................................................................................. ix GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................ xi CHAPTER ONE .......................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background information ................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research problem .......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Research questions and hypotheses of study ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Working Party No. 3 on Co-Operation and Enforcement
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development DAF/COMP/WP3(2020)5 Unclassified English - Or. English 14 September 2020 DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE Cancels & replaces the same document of 23 April 2020 Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement Cartel Criminalization and the Challenge of ‘Moral Wrongfulness’ By Peter Whelan 9 June 2020 This paper by Peter Whelan was submitted by the author as part of the background material in support of their presentation at Item 1 of the 131st meeting of Working Party 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement on 9 June 2020. This paper was not commissioned nor vetted by the OECD Secretariat; the opinions expressed and arguments employed herein are exclusively those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. The document is available in PDF only. More documents related to this discussion can be found at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/criminalisation-of-cartels-and-bid-rigging-conspiracies.htm Ms Sabine ZIGELSKI [Email: [email protected]] JT03465237 OFDE This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. 2 DAF/COMP/WP3(2020)5 CARTEL CRIMINALIZATION AND THE CHALLENGE OF ‘MORAL WRONGFULNESS’ Unclassified Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2013), pp. 535–561 doi:10.1093/ojls/gqt010 Published Advance Access April 29, 2013 Cartel Criminalization and the Challenge of ‘Moral Wrongfulness’ Peter Whelan* Abstract—There is considerable debate at present, particularly in the Member Downloaded from States of the European Union, concerning the necessity and appropriateness of imposing custodial sentences upon individuals who have engaged in cartel activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitting the Time to the Crime: Sentencing for Homicide
    Fitting the Time to the Crime: Sentencing for Homicide Nadine Baier A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago. October 2011 Acknowledgements To Geoff Hall, for your vast knowledge and expertise in this topic, and invaluable guidance throughout this year To the Law Library Staff, for all your support and good cheer To Natalie Kladnitski, for your support and well needed home cooked meals Finally to my family, for your proofreading skills and constant love and support throughout my university years ii Contents Introduction …………………………………………………………………………...1 I The History and Developments of the Sentencing Framework for Homicide……….6 A The Death Penalty …………………………………………………………6 1 The Criminal Justice Act 1954 ……………………………………...8 B The Crimes Act 1961 and Life Imprisonment …………………………….8 1 The Criminal Justice Act 1985 ……………………………………...9 C The Sentencing Act 2002 …………………………………………………11 1 The Current Sentencing Framework for Murder ………………….11 2 The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 ……………………..12 D Concluding Comments …………………………………………………...15 II Section 102: Life Imprisonment for Murder ………………………………………16 A Manifestly Unjust …………………………………………………………16 1 Life Imprisonment Manifestly Unjust – Examples ………………...17 B Relevance of Mitigating Factors …………………………………………20 1 Youth ……………………………………………………………….21 2 Guilty Plea …………………………………………………………21 3 Conduct of the Victim ……………………………………………...22 C Minimum Periods of Imprisonment ……………………………………...24 D Concluding Comments …………………………………………………...25
    [Show full text]
  • Elements of a Crime Pearson
    M01_ELLI0534_08_SE_C01.QXD 3/20/12 10:46 AM Page 13 Education 11 Elements of a crime Pearson from This chapter explains: ● that the defendant must usually have both committed an actus reus (a guilty act) and have a mens rea (a guilty mind) to be liable for apermission criminal offence; ● that criminal offences are not normally committed by an omission; prior ● the three main forms of mens rea are intention, recklessness and negligence; ● the doctrine of transferred malice; and without ● the requirement that the actus reus and mens rea of a crime should usually both exist at the same point in time. distribution for not File Proofs: M01_ELLI0534_08_SE_C01.QXD 3/20/12 10:46 AM Page 14 Actus reus Introduction Education A person cannot usually be found guilty of a criminal offence unless two elements are present: an actus reus, Latin for guilty act; and mens rea, Latin for guilty mind. Both these terms actually refer to more than just moral guilt, and each has a very specific meaning, which varies according to the crime, but the important thing to remember is that to be guilty of an offence, an accused must not only have behaved in a particular way, but must also usually have had a particular mental attitude to that behaviour. PearsonThe exception to this rule is a small group of offences known as crimes of strict liability, which are discussed in the next chapter. The definition of a particular crime, either in statute or under common law, will con- tain the required actus reus and mens rea for the offence.
    [Show full text]
  • WJEC/Eduqas a Level Law Book 2 Answers
    WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 2 answers Chapter 1: The law of contract Activity 1.1 Legal authority Legal authority Rule s9 Services must be provided at a reasonable price. s10 An unfair term is not binding on the consumer. The consumer’s legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory s11 quality. s20 Goods must be fi t for purpose. s23 Goods must be of satisfactory quality. If a service does not satisfy criteria, trader should redo the inadequate s49 element at no extra cost. Where repeat performance of the service is not possible, the consumer s50 can obtain a price reduction. s51 Goods must be as described. Retailer must be given the opportunity to repair or replace defective goods s52 outside the 30 days of purchase. s55 Services must be undertaken with reasonable care and skill. Any information given to the consumer before the service is provided is s56 binding. s62 Services must be provided within a reasonable time. Activity 1.2 Implied terms These are mini scenarios for which the students can use the IDA structure to construct mini answers using the relevant statute provisions. 1 WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 answers Activity 1.3 Application question (taken from WJEC/Eduqas SAMs material) 1. The question is taken from WJEC/Eduqas sample assessment material. Refer to https://www.eduqas.co.uk/qualifi cations/law/A-level-Law-SAMs.pdf, page 35, for indicative content of a response. 2. Use the approach outlined in the SAM that covers Q1 to respond. Discus it with a classmate if you want to.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasserting the Place of Objective Tests in Criminal Responsibility: Ending the Supremacy of Subjective Tests
    REASSERTING THE PLACE OF OBJECTIVE TESTS IN CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY: ENDING THE SUPREMACY OF SUBJECTIVE TESTS ANDREW HEMMING* Abstract This paper contends for a greater role for objective tests on public safety grounds, and building on the measure of objectivity contained in reckless murder at common law and constructive murder in all Australian States, seeks to redress the balance in favour of objective tests. The argument is made for an objective test for recklessness as the underlying fault element, based on the natural and probable consequences test adopted in Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1961] AC 290, which is similar to objective ‘Caldwell’ recklessness where the defendant does not foresee the relevant risk but a reasonable person would have, following R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341. The paper also advances the case for the adoption of purely objective tests for provocation and self-defence, because the current tests in Australia for both defences are confusing as they combine subjective and objective elements. I INTRODUCTION Australia has a very disparate mosaic of criminal laws within the nine criminal law jurisdictions. Unlike other countries, such as Canada, which has a single Criminal Code,1 Australia’s criminal laws are State based and can broadly be grouped into either Code States and Territories2 or common law States.3 Superimposed above State legislation is * (MA) (MSc) (MUP) (LLB Hons I) Lecturer in Law, University of Southern Queensland. 1 Criminal Code 1892 (Canada). 2 The Code States and Territories are Queensland (1899), Western Australia (1913), Tasmania (1924), the Northern Territory (1983) and the Australian Capital Territory (2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Mens Rea - Intention
    Actus reus The actus reus in criminal law consists of all elements of a crime other than the state of mind of the defendant. In particular, actus reus may consist of: conduct, result, a state of affairsor an omission. Conduct - the conduct itself might be criminal. Eg. the conduct of lying under oath represents the actus reus of perjury. It does not matter that whether the lie is believed or if had any effect on the outcome of the case, the actus reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct. Examples of conduct crimes: Perjury Theft Making off without payment Rape Possession of drugs or a firearm Result - The actus reus may relate to the result of the act or omission of the defendant. The conduct itself may not be criminal, but the result of the conduct may be. Eg it is not a crime to throw a stone, but if it hits a person or smashes a window it could amount to a crime.Causation must be established in all result crimes. Examples of result crimes: Assault Battery ABH Wounding and GBH Murder & Manslaughter Criminal damage State of affairs - For state of affairs crimes the actus reus consists of 'being' rather than 'doing'. Eg 'being' drunk in charge of a vehicle (Duck v Peacock [1949] 1 All ER 318 Case summary) or 'being' an illegal alien (R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74 case summary). Omission - Occassionally an omission can amount to the actus reus of a crime. The general rule regarding omissions is that there is no liability for a failure to act.
    [Show full text]
  • LW601 Advanced Level Criminal Law | University of Kent
    09/24/21 LW601 Advanced Level Criminal Law | University of Kent LW601 Advanced Level Criminal Law View Online 120 items Core text (3 items) Criminal law - De Than, Claire, Heaton, Russell, 2013 Book | Core (Must Read) Principles of criminal law - Ashworth, Andrew, Horder, Jeremy, 2013 Book | Core (Must Read) | Andrew Ashworth and Jeremy Horder Students should also purchase a Statutes book for Criminal Law as you will be able to take this statute book into the examination as long as it is clean (there can be highlighting but no writing at all). Additional texts. (6 items) Criminal law: doctrine and theory - William Wilson, Dawsonera, 2011 Book | Core (Must Read) | E-Book Criminal law: doctrine and theory - Wilson, William, Dawsonera, 2011 Book | Suggested for student purchase Criminal law: text, cases, and materials - Jonathan Herring, 2014 Book | Core (Must Read) | Other editions available Smith and Hogan's: text, cases, and materials on criminal law - D. C. Ormerod, J. C. Smith, Brian Hogan, D. C. Ormerod, Karl Laird, ©[2014 Book | Core (Must Read) | Other editions held Criminal law - Nicola Padfield, 2014 Book | Core (Must Read) | other editions held Lacey, Wells and Quick Reconstructing criminal law: text and materials - Wells, Celia, Quick, Oliver, Lacey, Nicola, 2010 Book | Core (Must Read) | other editions held Topic 1: Criminal Justice System (2 items) Corresponds to: Lectures: Weeks 1 and 2, Seminar 1: Weeks 2 1/18 09/24/21 LW601 Advanced Level Criminal Law | University of Kent Principles of criminal law - Ashworth, Andrew, Horder,
    [Show full text]
  • Current Criminal Law Volume 9 Issue 3 March 2016 ISSN 1758-8413 Online
    Current Criminal Law Volume 9 Issue 3 March 2016 ISSN 1758-8413 Online Current Criminal Law Volume 9 Issue 3 March 2016 Book review: Genetics, Crime and Justice Edward Elgar Publishing (2015) - pages 2-30 Current Criminal Law Volume 9 Issue 3 March 2016 ISSN 1758-8413 (Online) GGeenneettiiccss,, CCrriimmee aanndd JJuussttiiccee DDDeeebbbrrraaa WWWiiilllsssooonnn EEEdddwwwaaarrrddd EEElllgggaaarrr PPPuuubbbllliiissshhhiinnnggg (((222000111555))) CCChhheeelllttteeennnhhhaaammm,,, UUUnnniiittteeeddd KKKiiinnngggdddooommm IIISSSBBBNNN 999777888 111 777888333444777 888888111 111 (((cccaaassseeeddd))) IIISSSBBBNNN 999777888 111 777888333444777 888888222 888 (((eeeBBBooooookkk))) Book review by Sally Ramage 2 Current Criminal Law Volume 9 Issue 3 March 2016 ISSN 1758-8413 (Online) Keywords Australia, behaviour, evidence, genetics, crimes, criminal law, New Zealand, offshore, procedure, recidivism, taxation, United Kingdom, United States. Black letter law Australia Evidence Act 1955 New Zealand Evidence Act 2006 US Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 402 and Rule 404(6) UK Corporation Taxes Act 1970 UK Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, s 1(1) UK Criminal Justice Act 1967, s8 UK Criminal Justice Act 2003 UK Income Tax Act 1799 UK Inquiries Act 2005 UK Case law Attorney General Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982 DPP v Beard [1920] HL Pepper v Hart [1992] UKHL 3 R v Bratty [1963] 72 Crim App Rev 211 R v Charlston [1955] 39 Crim App Rev 37 R v Hennessey [1989] 1 WLR 287 R v Kemp [1957] QB 399 R v McKnight (Sonia), Times, 5 May 2000, CA. R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025 R v Quick [1973] QB 910 3 Current Criminal Law Volume 9 Issue 3 March 2016 ISSN 1758-8413 (Online) R v Sheehan and Moore [1975] 1 WLR 739 R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103 US Caselaw Daryl Renard Atkins v Virginia 536 US 304 (2002) 260 va 375, 534 S.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2106.04235V1 [Cs.AI] 8 Jun 2021 H
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Definitions of intent suitable for algorithms Hal Ashton Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract Intent modifies an actor's culpability of many types wrongdoing. Autonomous Algorithmic Agents have the capability of causing harm, and whilst their current lack of legal personhood precludes them from committing crimes, it is useful for a number of parties to understand under what type of intentional mode an algorithm might transgress. From the perspective of the creator or owner they would like ensure that their algorithms never intend to cause harm by doing things that would otherwise be labelled criminal if com- mitted by a legal person. Prosecutors might have an interest in understanding whether the actions of an algorithm were internally intended according to a transparent definition of the concept. The presence or absence of intention in the algorithmic agent might inform the court as to the complicity of its owner. This article introduces definitions for direct, oblique (or indirect) and ulterior intent which can be used to test for intent in an algorithmic actor. Keywords Intent · Causality · Autonomous Agents · AI Crime · AI Ethics 1 Introduction The establishment of criminal intent, the volitional component of mens rea in the someone accused of committing a crime, is a necessary task in proving that a crime was committed. An autonomous algorithm with agency can perform actions which would considered criminal (actus reus) if a human with sufficient mens rea performed them. For brevity in this article we will follow Abbott and Supported by EPSRC arXiv:2106.04235v1 [cs.AI] 8 Jun 2021 H.
    [Show full text]