31st October 2019
Criminal Law – Lecture 7: Murder
1. Brief recap of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence
- Standards of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence (as well as gross
negligence)
o Intention
o Direct intention
When the proscribed conduct or consequence is the defendant’s
direct aim or purpose
o Oblique intention
1) It was virtually certain to arise (objective part)
2) D recognises that it was virtually certain consequence of D’s
conduct (subjective part)
3) Jury find that this recognition amounts to intention (jury part)
2. Understanding murder within the bigger picture of crime
3. Scope of homicide
4. Murder: actus reus and mens rea
Recklessness:
- D must demonstrate that s/he:
o Foresaw a risk of the relevant elements of the actus reus (subjective part)
o And, unreasonably continued to run that risk (objective part)
Negligence:
- Doesn’t properly require a state of mind
o Rather, it requires the judgement that the defendant’s conduct fell below a
specific ‘reasonable’ standard of care
o The primary example of objective mens rea
Subjective elements of mens rea:
- D intended to cause the harm
- D foresaw the risk of the harm occurring
- D realised that there was a risk of harm
Objective:
- The risk of harm was foreseeable (to a reasonable person in D’s position)
- D’s actions were unreasonable
- D should have foreseen/ought to have appreciated that there was a risk of harm
Murder:
- Police recorded 1.4 million violence against the person offences in the year ending
March 2018
- “violence without injury” accounted for 42%
- “violence with injury” accounted for 37%
- “Homicide” accounted for 0.05% (726 offences)
- However, homicide rates are at a record high
Criminal Law – Lecture 7: Murder
1. Brief recap of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence
- Standards of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence (as well as gross
negligence)
o Intention
o Direct intention
When the proscribed conduct or consequence is the defendant’s
direct aim or purpose
o Oblique intention
1) It was virtually certain to arise (objective part)
2) D recognises that it was virtually certain consequence of D’s
conduct (subjective part)
3) Jury find that this recognition amounts to intention (jury part)
2. Understanding murder within the bigger picture of crime
3. Scope of homicide
4. Murder: actus reus and mens rea
Recklessness:
- D must demonstrate that s/he:
o Foresaw a risk of the relevant elements of the actus reus (subjective part)
o And, unreasonably continued to run that risk (objective part)
Negligence:
- Doesn’t properly require a state of mind
o Rather, it requires the judgement that the defendant’s conduct fell below a
specific ‘reasonable’ standard of care
o The primary example of objective mens rea
Subjective elements of mens rea:
- D intended to cause the harm
- D foresaw the risk of the harm occurring
- D realised that there was a risk of harm
Objective:
- The risk of harm was foreseeable (to a reasonable person in D’s position)
- D’s actions were unreasonable
- D should have foreseen/ought to have appreciated that there was a risk of harm
Murder:
- Police recorded 1.4 million violence against the person offences in the year ending
March 2018
- “violence without injury” accounted for 42%
- “violence with injury” accounted for 37%
- “Homicide” accounted for 0.05% (726 offences)
- However, homicide rates are at a record high
