The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Criminal Law Topic

I am lacking of the points for constructing this topic...

“The mens rea of intention is highly confusing and neither parliament nor the courts have come forward to clarify the ambiguities”
(edited 11 years ago)
Surely you can frame your post in a better way than that?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 2
Avatar for gt74
gt74
I dont understand you question :rolleyes:
Reply 3
Avatar for mpoolton
mpoolton
Compare and contrast the difference between Direct intent as defined in ?Maloney? where "intent means intent" with what Professor Ashworth calls Indirect Intent, as defined in ?Woollin? which means if a result is a "virtual certainty" of the defendant's actions the juries are "entitled to find" intent. Explain how this is obviously unclear, what does 'virtual certainty' mean?! Look up an article by Norrie called After Woollin!
Original post by alvynlee
I am lack of the points for constructing this topic...
Anybody help?It is related to Criminal Law topic...Mens Rea,intention....

The mens rea of intention is highly confusing and neither parliament nor the courts have come forward to clarify the ambiguities


Sorry I was perhaps rudely alluding to the somewhat random grammar on your post.

I agree with the above. It is asking you to examine direct and indirect intent. Ultimately, you must decide if it is confusing or not. Should indirect intent be 'intent' at all? Is the division confusing at all?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you