In this paper, an examination of the legal standard of relevance evidence will be discussed. Furthermore, the rules of inclusion and exclusion of evidence based on the wording of the rules will be scrutinized. In the final section, examples of evidence will be presented that could be both relevant and irrelevant for certain crime. As mentioned earlier relevance evidence refers to any material fact or evidence that make the existence of a issue more probable than it would without facts. When evidence has been offered and a determination has been made to include it due to passing constitutional test and did not violated collection procedures, the supporter of the evidence will have to demonstrate the materiality, competency, and relevancy of same(Britz, 2008, p.273).
Mens Rea, (second general component of crime, pg 124) the state of mind that accompanies a criminal act, is also thought of as a guilty mind. To find out whether or not a person’s state of mind during a criminal act was intentional or unintentional, one would have to observe the four levels that can distinguish mens rea. This consists of purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent. Were they intentionally trying to commit the crime knowing the consequences? Knowing causes awareness which proclaims that a person should know whether what they are about to do is right or wrong.
To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
In Attorney-General’s Reference (No.4 of 2002) , the Court of Appeal adopted an analogous approach. The court held that Art 6(2) requires the prosecution to prove the “true nature” or the “gravamen” of the offence. It appears that this requires the court to discover the rationale of the offence, including any elements of moral blameworthiness. The court took the view that the application is not dependant on a formal statutory separation of elements and defences. Some statutory defences might not form part of the “gravamen” of the offence, whereas others might.
A judge may distinguish the awkward precedent on its facts - arguing that the facts of the case under consideration are different in some important way from those of the previous case and therefore the rule does not apply. A precedent may be distinguished on a point of law; by arguing that the legal question answered by the precedent is not the same as that asked in the instant case. Courts may distinguish a precedent by stating that the precedent has been superseded by more recent decisions, and is therefore outdated. Courts may give the precedent a very narrow ratio decidendi or argue that the precedent has no clear ratio decidendi, for example because the ratio of one judge in a case is different from others in the same case. Courts may cla... ... middle of paper ... ...t of the Human Rights Act 1998 is as yet uncertain.
Critically evaluate the mens rea of murder. Within this coursework aiming to critically evaluate the mens rea of murder, focusing on each of the impacts which relate and combine with killing or causing grievous bodily harm to a person. The main issues I will focus on are, the intention of murder, recklessness, negligence and strict liability. Mens rea (MR) is the Latin phrase of ‘guilty mind. Mens Rea is the legal term used to describe the element of a criminal offence that relates to the defendants mental state.
There have been a number of cases in recent years which deal with proprietary estoppel. In the case of Thorner v Major (2009) court of appeal attempted to clarify the law and applied a somewhat subjective factor of proprietary estoppel claims, and stated that the assurance must be 'clear and unequivocal'. However, the House of Lords disagreed with the test and said that even if it did apply the facts of the case would still satisfy it. House of Lords stated that the relevant assurance had to be clear and held that, what amounts to sufficient clarity depends upon the context on which the doctrine applied, as mentioned before that the facts of a case are of real importance and therefore allows the court to have discretion when using this doctrine. Lord Walker in Thoner stated that, although the doctrine is flexible, it must be formulated and applied in a principled way.
In factual impossibility cases, the defendant is mistaken regarding some fact that is critical to the success of the crime. Under both common law and modern law, factual impossibility is not a defense that would bar conviction for attempt. In such cases, the actor must have the mental state necessary to be guilty of the crime and by committing the acts has proven his or her dangerous. Legal impossibility is when a person attempts to commit an act that would not amount to a crime if completed. Hybrid legal impossibility is an ambiguous case, in which impossibility could be considered legal or factual, as distinguished from cases of true legal impossibility.
Instead they were barred from a claim. The lack of flexibility here is therefore questionable justice for the wronged party, who must, for commercial or other reasons, keep the contract intact. It does not appear at all fair that some of contract law is restrained in this way whilst most other aspects are not. It is the submission of this writer that complete justice will only be found in this area when the innocent party can opt to receive damages in lieu of the recission of the contract. The law in this area requires expansion in order to be entirely
In such a situation the contract will be voidable but not void... While I was strongly attached to this solution, I find myself unable to adopt it. Per Lord Philips of Maltravers in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson  UKHL 62;  1 AC 919 at - Explain why you agree or disagree with the approach of Lord Nicholls and Millet. It is evident from case law that the law regarding mistake has been inconsistent as a result of irregular decisions being made in cases with similar facts. In situations where a third party and their rights are concerned it is necessary to consider if the contract between A and B is void or voidable.