Unformatted text preview: harm was sufficient mens rea for murder. 3. The more recent case of R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226 the Court of Appeal did not accept that the reference to "very high degree of probability" was a misdirection. This case therefore agreed that foresight of death was something from which a jury could infer intent to kill. It is therefore submitted that in applying this jury direction, that the trial judge did indeed apply the correct test for mens rea. 4. The latest development was in the Court of Appeal case of R v Matthews and Alleyne  2 Cr. App. R. 30 . The Court of Appeal stated ‘there is very little to choose between a rule of evidence and one of substantive law’ and that on the facts a finding of intention was ‘irresistible’....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/25/2012 for the course BIO 1421 taught by Professor Farr during the Fall '08 term at Texas State.
- Fall '08