Skeleton - harm was sufficient mens rea for murder. 3. The...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In the Court of Appeal Between: REGINA (Respondent) -AND- O’HARE (Appellant) SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN AS THE JUNIOR RESPONDENT 1. It is submitted that Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 defines how intention of foresight must be proved by a jury. From the act it is then established that the test is therefore subjective and a jury is to decide what the defendant's intention were from considering all the evidence. 2. In the case of Hyam v. DPP [1975] A.C. 55 Justice Ackner directed the jury that the defendant was guilty if she knew that it was highly probable that her act would cause at least serious bodily harm. On appeal, the House of Lords reaffirmed this decision, holding that foresight on the part of the defendant that his actions were likely, or highly likely, to cause death or grievous bodily
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

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 [2003] 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

Ask a homework question - tutors are online