Law UNSW | USYD | UTS | Macquarie LAWS1022 | LAWS1016 | 70114 | LAWS109 0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5
Search the full-text of these Notes:

Excerpt from these Notes:

iv. WAS THERE INTENTION? Intention is relevant to offences with subjective mens rea only. The question to be asked is whether the accused intended to commit the offending act. DPP v Morgan (1976) There is a difference for offences where mens rea ‘goes beyond’ the actus reus (ulterior intent) and those that do not (basic intent). When it comes to proving any ulterior intent which must be proved, we cannot rely on any evidentiary inferences arising from the fact that the actus has been committed, as we can with basic intent offences. v. WAS THERE RECKLESSNESS OR MALICE? This is a concept that is applicable to specific offences, such as reckless indifference to human life. Recklessness exists where the accused perceives a risk that the act might cause certain consequences, but does it anyway.

Author’s description:

The most concise and updated Criminal Law Study Notes for Australian Law Students.

Includes Model Exams and Model Exam Answers.
(Click here to purchase just the Notes)

Details:

Approximately 24395 words over 55 pages. Prepared in 2019.

Comments and Questions:

To leave a comment or question about these Notes, please log in or create an account.
Log In or Register