- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Walker and Hayles [1990]-Attempted Murder - Mens Rea
This case note focuses on the mens rea (mental element) required for the crime of attempted murder. Understanding this legal principle is crucial for accurately analyzing criminal liability.
Key Case: Walker and Hayles (1990)
Court: Court of Appeal (CA)
Facts:
Key Takeaways for Study:
Why is this important?
Remember to integrate your understanding of Nedrick with this case to fully grasp the nuances of indirect intent in attempted murder.
This case note focuses on the mens rea (mental element) required for the crime of attempted murder. Understanding this legal principle is crucial for accurately analyzing criminal liability.
Key Case: Walker and Hayles (1990)
Court: Court of Appeal (CA)
Facts:
- The defendants threw the victim (V) over a third-floor balcony during a fight.
- The victim survived the fall.
- The defendants were convicted of attempted murder.
- They appealed their conviction, arguing that the trial judge had incorrectly instructed the jury on the necessary mental element for attempted murder.
- What is the mens rea required for attempted murder? Specifically, can "intent to kill" be inferred from foresight of a virtually certain or highly probable consequence?
- Following the precedent set in Nedrick (which you should refer to for further detail on foresight and intention), the Court of Appeal confirmed that the jury could infer an intent to kill for attempted murder.
- This inference is permissible if there is evidence that the defendant(s) foresaw death as a virtually certain or highly probable consequence of their actions.
Key Takeaways for Study:
- Crime: Attempted Murder
- Crucial Element: Mens Rea (Mental Element)
- Core Principle: While the mens rea for attempted murder is intent to kill, this intent does not always need to be direct (e.g., explicitly stating "I intend to kill").
- Inference of Intent: A jury is permitted to infer (deduce) an intent to kill if the defendant(s) foresaw that death was:
- Virtually Certain OR
- Highly Probable as a result of their actions.
- Precedent: This principle builds upon and re-affirms the precedent established in Nedrick. Ensure you understand Nedrick's contribution to the understanding of indirect intent.
- Application: This case illustrates how a dangerous act, even if it doesn't result in death, can still constitute attempted murder if the defendant foresaw death as a virtually certain or highly probable consequence. The fact that V survived is irrelevant to the establishment of the mens rea for attempted murder.
Why is this important?
- It clarifies that "intent" in criminal law can extend beyond direct desire.
- It provides a mechanism for juries to find intent based on the objective foresight of the defendant, even if the defendant denies a direct intention to kill.
- It highlights the serious nature of actions where death is a highly probable outcome, even if not explicitly desired.
Remember to integrate your understanding of Nedrick with this case to fully grasp the nuances of indirect intent in attempted murder.
0 Comments