This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- chemistry aqa
- Law exam - wrong conclusion in problem question
- NEA A level english language CLD
- LSE, KCL, UCL or ICL
- Politics a level
- SOAS MSc in Economics
- Bulking from 50kg to get to 70kg
- Power And the People Hist AQA
- Aberdeen scholarship raised to £8000 !!
- Geography NEA AQA
- drawing error bars from standard deviation urgent!!
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- January 2024 IGCSE edexcel papers
- History AQA - Health and The People - Significance (8) (pls mark)
- Second offence academic misconduct- uni of Leeds
- Is AI going to impact solicitors?
- BTEC H&S Care Unit 12: Supporting Individuals with Additional Needs Work Explained
- Can I still get a MEng?
- Applying to MA Film in the UK without a first degree. How likely will I be accepted?
- Charles I essay, help!
Maybe best to read it or look it up in a textbook. Stop being so lazy. If you are having difficulties understanding it after reading it, then post those problems here and we can discuss them.
Because it re-defines the objective/subjective recklessness.
It used to be the case that you could be found guilty under recklessness if you did something which the ordinary reasonable person realise carries a risk.
The case then created a new subjective recklessness test where the defendant must see the risk and then go onto take it.
It used to be the case that you could be found guilty under recklessness if you did something which the ordinary reasonable person realise carries a risk.
The case then created a new subjective recklessness test where the defendant must see the risk and then go onto take it.
No, actually Woolin is to do with the other possible mens rea, Intention not as you say, Recklessness. I think you were meaning the case of R v G which basically made the test for recklessness subjective.
Woolin is the leading case of intention in that, basically, means that one will satisfy the test for intention if (a) it was his intention to perform the actus reus or (b) there was a sufficiently high probability of the actus reus occuring (I cannot remember what language the courts use in the latter, I think it may be "very high" or something.
The example the courts always give is the bomber who intends to blow up a plane for insurance reasons, however the plane, as is known to him, has passengers on board. His intention is not to kill the passengers, but it is extremely likely that they will die (certain you could say), therefore he has sufficient mens rea for murder.
I would recommend reading all the judgments in Woolin.
Woolin is the leading case of intention in that, basically, means that one will satisfy the test for intention if (a) it was his intention to perform the actus reus or (b) there was a sufficiently high probability of the actus reus occuring (I cannot remember what language the courts use in the latter, I think it may be "very high" or something.
The example the courts always give is the bomber who intends to blow up a plane for insurance reasons, however the plane, as is known to him, has passengers on board. His intention is not to kill the passengers, but it is extremely likely that they will die (certain you could say), therefore he has sufficient mens rea for murder.
I would recommend reading all the judgments in Woolin.
AH of course. Thanks
R v. Woolin [1999] HL: Confirms the Nedrick approach, to establish intent the defendant’s actions must have been virtually certain to have caused the consequence, and the defendant must have appreciated that such was the case.
If you need a good book try either Smith & Hogan, Andrew Ashworth, or Jonathan Herring. The Herring book is particularly easy to understand.
Second Smith & Hogan.
Yes. V.good, it's my main text at Bristol.
Yeh Ashworth is good for developing arguments on essays as it is quite opinionated, whereas a book like Smith & Hogan is better for actually telling you what the law is.
Simester and Sullivan is a good one to use. It's our main textbook here, though, Herring is also popular. Personally, I use Simester and Sullivan alongsode the Smith and Hogan casebook, and that works fine for me.
By the way, for anyone doing an essay on intention, you should all read the article "Intention and the Terrorist Example" [2003] Crim LR 579 by Antje Pedain. It's a really interesting way of looking at intention, and will provide you with a great source of critical comment.
By the way, for anyone doing an essay on intention, you should all read the article "Intention and the Terrorist Example" [2003] Crim LR 579 by Antje Pedain. It's a really interesting way of looking at intention, and will provide you with a great source of critical comment.
Related discussions
- chemistry aqa
- Law exam - wrong conclusion in problem question
- NEA A level english language CLD
- LSE, KCL, UCL or ICL
- Politics a level
- SOAS MSc in Economics
- Bulking from 50kg to get to 70kg
- Power And the People Hist AQA
- Aberdeen scholarship raised to £8000 !!
- Geography NEA AQA
- drawing error bars from standard deviation urgent!!
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- January 2024 IGCSE edexcel papers
- History AQA - Health and The People - Significance (8) (pls mark)
- Second offence academic misconduct- uni of Leeds
- Is AI going to impact solicitors?
- BTEC H&S Care Unit 12: Supporting Individuals with Additional Needs Work Explained
- Can I still get a MEng?
- Applying to MA Film in the UK without a first degree. How likely will I be accepted?
- Charles I essay, help!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
Oxford rejection, do I have to hope for a miracle to get into my other universities?Law
11
15
Last reply 1 month ago
Has anyone received offers for law from university of Nottingham or Warwick?Law
18
35
