This case brings attention to the notion of a mental element or guilty mind. The mental element of a case must be proven for a conviction to occur. The relevant issue, in this case, is whether the appellant (prosecutor) needed to prove that the respondent (defendant) knowingly acted in a way that would create a crime or that he could have reasonably predicted that his actions would lead to him committing a crime.
B) The High Court examined the following factors in He Kaw Teh v The Queen that was relevant to the above issue. 1) Brenna J suggests that when a wrongdoing based simply on exterior foundations the mental element also known as mens rea or guilty mind is generally implied. 2) If it has been assumed that an individual has a guilty
…show more content…
More specifically Section 7 which looks at public order offences. Section 7A (1) of the act deals with individuals who disrupt other around them, whether the individual is acting in a offensive manner (a) or using hurtful language (c) has committed a crime. However, a crime has only been committed if the individual in question acted with the purpose of interrupting or upsetting others in the same space as them. While section 22 of the act again states the use of indecent language in public places is a crime, furthermore, it states other specific situation and anywhere with the intent to insult other individuals’ is a …show more content…
Doyle CJ said this was not surprising because of the significance place of people’s rights in society today. Therefore, the need to prove a guilty mind strengthens these rights particularly the right of freedom of speech. It was also based on the way legislation is viewed that to create an offence there need to be the belief that no crime can occur without proving a guilty state of mind, as seen in the case of He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523.
J) To find an offender guilty it was unnecessary to establish that the specific behaviour was conducted with intention or could reasonable foresee that the action/s would be offensive to others. This was the view of State authority not as legislation more of an agreement that is commonly
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
Where as in the case of R v Manunta , he stated that where an apparent non-compliance with Browne v Dunn was followed by judicial comment to the jury, it is vital to consider the substance of the comment, as the purpose of the comment may differ based on circumstances. Furthermore, the case of R v MAP where the courts consideration that whether Browne v Dunn applied to the defense councils failure to cross-examine is consistent with the principles outlined in MWJ v R . It elaborates on the explication of the rule in Browne v Dunn by exploring the circumstances which may surround the failure to cross examine on a fact in issue. The facts of the revolve around a conviction of rape, according to section 349 of the criminal code 1899 (QLD), the offence of rape covers various nonconsensual sexual penetration.
Jurors opinions can be influenced by an emotional testimony. Deborah W. Denno’s article Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and the Criminal Justice System is the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law’s publication of a panel at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. The panel had three goals: “examine the interrelationship between neuroscience and substantive criminal law; to incorporate criminal procedure more directly into the examination in a way that past investigations have not done; and to scrutinize cognitive bias in decision-making,” (Denno
Print. The. Finkel, Norman J. and Parrot, W. Gerrod. Emotions and Culpability: How the law is at odds with psychology, jurors, and itself. Washington: American Psychological Association, 2006. Print.
In conclusion, as shown throughout this paper, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence comes in several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. When evidence is presented, it acceptance in trial depends on relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) has often perplexed even the most stringent of legal and psychiatric professionals for centuries. Moreover, it has transcended into the pop culture, as a “loophole”for the criminal society. However, the insanity defense is only used in less than 1% of criminal cases, and used successfully in only 10-25% of those cases (Torry and Billick, 2010). In order to successfully be acquitted by reason of insanity, the legal team, paired with psychiatric professionals, must prove that the defendant is not legally responsible for the crime, despite the evidence that they executed the crime. They must also prove that the defendant, was or is currently suffering from a mental disorder, and that the defendant have/had a impaired logical control of their actions (Smith, 2011). According to Torry and Billick (2010), “A criminal act must have two components: evil intent (mens rea, literally “guilt mind”) and action (actus reus, literally “guilty act”)” (p.225), thus the defendant must prove that he/she did not have “mens rea” or “actus reus.” Equally important to note, the act itself must be voluntary and conscious. The the majority of the psychological and judicial court system have a reluctance to hold defendants who lack the capability needed to understand “right from wrong” (Torry and Billick, 2010). It has been proven that over the course of many years, the NGRI have been difficult to apply. During the early 1980’s, many states modernized their NGRI defense and even abolished the defense altogether. Instead of allowing the the “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense, many states have established a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) (Smith, 2011). In order to make sure that individuals w...
[6] Id. [7] Supra at note 2. The defendant was charged under the Official Secrets Act 1991 and although the judge ruled that there was no valid defence the jury refused to convict him. [8] http://www.hayesfield.co.uk/law/Revision/Juries.doc [9] Lord Denning, What’s Next in Law? As cited by http://www.hayesfield.co.uk/law/Revision/Juries.doc [10] Supra at note 2.
The legal system’s focus on legal guilt over factual guilt sets rules in place that could potentially prove an accused person’s innocence and thus solve the issue of factual guilt. The judicial system is structured in a way that ensures a person’s legal rights are upheld when it comes to criminal law. It is critical to the proceedings that all rules are followed
Furthermore, the Magistrates, due to insufficient evidence, were advised by their clerk that it was within their power to infer S.5 (1) (a) had taken place. The defence argued that section 5 of 1986 Act should be interpreted with the Public Order Act 1936 S.5 that was used in the case of Marsh v. Arscott. Defendant was charged under the Public Order Act 1936 S.5 which states any person using threatening, abusive or insulting words in a public place with the intention to cause a breach of peace or the breach is likely to be
One of the main factors in wrongful convictions, tunnel vision, has been recognized by psychologist as a human tendency to quickly convict a suspect so that society feels safe. Although tunnel vision is seen as a natural instinct it can convict innocent individuals and weaken the criminal justice system . Jerome Frank, a judge in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals explored the causes of wrongful convictions and noted that in 36 cases tunnel vision was a significant factor in the conviction of innocent individuals. As demonstrated, tunnel vision is a prevalent factor and may affect cases resulting in judges and juries convicting wrong suspects. However, the human tendency towards tunnel vision is a distinctive feature of an individuals psychological characteristics. Psychologist view tunnel vision as the product of cognitive biases. These natural biases explain why tunnel vision is common even amongst respected legal enforcers and honest justice systems. Although tunnel vision is a common natural tendency, it can be altered and lead to the conviction of innocent individuals.In situations when a high profile case is
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
If people should see less importance in others’ pain, then hurtful acts will be seen as less hurtful than they really are. This type of thinking is evident in many mentally ill patients who have presented themselves in court in the past. A significant proportion of criminals dampen the horrible memory of committing the crime so that when they present themselves to the jury they are convinced that what they did was not as bad as people may thing. To cope, some criminals even succeed in convincing themselves that they didn’t even commit the crime (Abrahamson 1973). In the opposing argument, it is believed that the Council’s perspective is exactly why memory dampening should be utilized.
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...
The second condition to be established is whether the defendant had a “disease of the mind”. This condition is