LAW

Published on
Kembaraxtra-Case Law-R v. Purcell (1986)
Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Facts:
  • The defendant (D) attacked the victim (V) with a hammer and strangled her, causing injury.
Issue:
  • Intent required for a charge of causing wounding with intent (likely under s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
Holding:
  • D was found guilty of causing wounding with intent.
Reasoning (per Lord Lane CJ):
  • When charging someone with causing grievous bodily harm, the jury must be directed on the issue of intent as follows:
    • The jury must be sure that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm to the victim.
    • The jury can only determine the defendant's intention by considering all relevant circumstances, especially:
      • What the defendant did.
      • What the defendant said about it.
  • Lord Lane CJ is citing Lord Bridge in Moloney as authority.
Key Takeaways:
  • This case clarifies the level of mens rea required for offences involving grievous bodily harm or wounding with intent.
  • The prosecution must prove the defendant specifically intended to cause serious bodily harm.
  • Intention is a subjective element, inferred from the defendant's actions and words in the context of the surrounding circumstances.
  • The Moloney guidance on intention is relevant in determining the defendant's state of mind.​
Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law