Mens Rea V.

In this case the judge talked about a possible situation where a driver swats at a bee as an involuntary action or twinge and ends up crashing the vehicle. However not all actions which lead to bad results are voluntary and therefore not always a crime.

Mens Rea, is another crucial Latin term, it is a compulsory element of most offences to have a mental intent. That means, if you are driving a vehicle and someone throws themselves in front of your moving vehicle, and as a result dies. You are not guilty of murder because, Murder requires the intention to kill or cause harm and you didn’t have it, however you may still be liable for other offences such as dangerous driving or manslaughter, Also Mens rea is the intention or reckless will to

And therefore she is liable to criminal prosecution.

The underlying cause (the bag strap hitting Pedro) did lead to Pedro dropping glass and shattering it onto the floor. This went on to lead to further harm when Amy and group of friends did not see the spillage and shattered glass and as a result hurt themselves whilst falling on it.

Again it was not his intention to do harm, as he did not anticipate the incoming strap from Theresa his frame of mind at the time was not to do harm. Pedro’s Situation is very similar to the case Hill v Baxter. Pedro’s actions were involuntary and therefore he isn’t liable for criminal prosecution unlike Theresa. In this case Theresa is liable again; here we would implement the ‘but for test’. ”but for the actions of Theresa, would Amy and her friends be in that situation”

Moving onto, Amy’s boyfriend David, he was in wrong doing as well as originally Theresa. He committed GBH by kicking and punching Pedro. Considering his frame of mind (Mens

One case which similar to this R v Dytham (1979)

Lauren the medical professional present at the club at that time, was negligent and reckless in their examination of Pedro, Lauren did not assess the original factors and also did not listen to Pedro’s attempt to inform her about an underlying medical condition through a note he had in his pocket. Her ignoring Pedro had led to his death. In this case there was not a BREAK in the chain, even though the initial medical examination was awful, the operating cause was still the original injury. A similar case is R v Smith (1959).

Although Pedro died in Lauren’s care, she is not criminally liable, because the initial damage was caused by David; the underlying cause is what contributed to his death. David would be held under arrest for murder in this case. Because after Pedro was assaulted by David, he was still conscious, but after the doctor’s efforts to help Pedro, his condition deteriorating is what caused the