Search Results

Point to remember … Although these cases allow for complicity by procuring even though P does not commit a principal offence, it is essential that P completes the actus reus of the

the same time, are essential to the application of the law. They are therefore essential considerations within all problem questions. However, although essential, it is relatively rare

it is the aim of the defence to raise a ‘reasonable doubt’ within any essential element of the prosecution’s case. Where D wishes to raise a defence (eg D kicked V in self-defence)

these examples, lacks an essential element for all offences. • Insanity (as a denial of offending) : D explains her lack of mens rea (including, in extreme cases, her lack of voluntary

majority of cases it will be obvious whether D has acted or omitted to act, and it will be a case of assessing her liability on that basis. However, this will not always be the case. For example

liability is that the accomplice must know the essential elements of the offence (including the principal’s mental element), but in these cases the accomplice usually knows that the would-be

forms an essential part of the context in which to make a just evaluation whether a qualifying trigger properly falls within the ambit of subsections 55(3) and (4)’. 114 The case for saying

supply and overdose case. As we discussed earlier, UAM cannot operate in these cases as V’s voluntary self-injection will break the chain of causation. In cases like Evans , by focussing

ambiguous cases such as so-called ‘mercy killings’ where D intentionally kills, often with V’s consent, in order to relieve V’s pain or suffering. The moral diversity of these cases is useful

majority of cases it will be obvious that D’s movement or omission to move was voluntary. This will be the case where D has considered her options before acting, as well as cases where D

sentencing for this offence, 21% of cases involved an absolute discharge in 2014, 40% of cases were met with a suspended sentence, and nearly 40% of cases were deemed to merit a sentence

194 and in even more extreme cases to justify assisted suicide or euthanasia. 195 Such cases, of course, were never likely to succeed. Although a case can be made for both on a balance

in such cases, but it does not manifest itself in the form of voluntary conduct. Automatism is often regarded as a defence to crime rather than as a denial of an essential component

coincidence of deception and mens rea. In cases such as Ray , recognition of an implied continuing representation is essential to liability and, post-FA 2006, the potential for

well as catching the negligent person, disposes of another difficult case. It deals satisfactorily with the case of D who does not stop to think about B’s age at all (simple ignorance)

determination in murder cases. 47 Although arguments based on Art. 5 only have purchase at the stage where D is deprived of liberty, they are relevant in many cases and it would be best

founded in constitutional principle, that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence. Only a compelling case for implying the exclusion of such an ingredient as a matter

two offences can be committed by one and the same act. 70 In all cases of receiving, it continues to be essential for the judge to give a careful direction as to possession or control