- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- R v Hipperson (1996)
Case Details
Case Details
- Case Name: R v. Hiperson (1996)
- Court: [Implicitly, a UK criminal court, as indicated by "LJ" for Lord Justice]
- Defendant (D): Hipperson
- Actions: On Hiroshima Day, Hipperson broke into the Atomic Weapons Establishment compound.
- Alleged Motivation: Hipperson claimed the action was to prevent the crime of genocide.
- Charge: Criminal Damage
- Outcome: Hiperson was found guilty of causing criminal damage.
- Mistake of Fact: The court found "no suggestion" and explicitly stated that Hiperson was "not" acting under a mistake of fact.
- Mistake of Law: The court determined that Hiperson was acting under a "sincerely held mistake of law as to what constitutes the crime of genocide."
- Mistake of Law is Generally No Defense: This case strongly reinforces the principle that a mistake regarding the law (what constitutes a particular crime, in this instance) does not negate criminal liability. Ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse.
- Distinction between Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law: The court clearly differentiates between these two concepts.
- Mistake of Fact: A genuine belief in a state of affairs that is factually incorrect (e.g., believing you are taking your own umbrella when it's actually someone else's). This can sometimes negate mens rea (guilty mind) depending on the specific crime.
- Mistake of Law: A genuine misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what the law actually is or what constitutes a legal offense (e.g., believing an act is not legally considered "genocide" when it is). This rarely negates mens rea and is generally not a valid defense.
- Motive vs. Intent: Hipperson's motive (to prevent genocide) was clearly established but did not negate the intent to cause criminal damage. Criminal law generally focuses on the intent to commit the prohibited act, not the underlying motive for doing so.
0 Comments