No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Mens Rea and Motorists
A Memorandum for Students
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
The ever-increasing number of deaths caused by accidents in which motor vehicles are involved has naturally suggested to many people's minds that some alteration in our law is required. This is an idea not confined to laymen, for there are frequent references to the matter in the legal periodicals; it has been publicly discussed by practising lawyers and the attention of the Legislature has been directed to the problem of devising some new enactment.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1933
References
1 E. g. Law Journal, vol. lxxi, p. 437, vol. lxxiv, pp. 128, 289, 381.
2 Kenny, Outlines of Criminal Law (14th ed.), p. 115.
3 E.g. R. v. Cheeseman (1836) 7 C. & P. 455Google Scholar; R. v. Shepherd (1862) L. & C. 147Google Scholar; R. v. Edwards (1838), 8 C. & P. 611Google Scholar; R. v. Smith (1849) 11 Cox 210Google Scholar.
4 E.g. R. v. Macdaniel (1756) 1 Leach 44Google Scholar; R. v. Holland (1841) 2 Moody & Rob. 351Google Scholar; R. v. Sawyer (1887) 106 Sess. Pap. 301Google Scholar.
5 Austin, Jurisprudence (4th ed.), vol. 1, p. 434.
6 As Austin (op. cit. p. 441) says, ‘the party conceives the future event, and believes that there is a chance of its following his volition or act.’ Cp. the German ‘Vorsätzlich,’ B.G.B. Art. 823.
7 Austin, op. cit. vol. 1, pp. 436, 441, 442.
8 Kenny, op. cit. p. 150.
9 Hudston v. Viney [1921] 1 Ch. 98, at p. 104.
10 See, for example, the different meanings of the word ‘negligence’ in Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law (14th ed.), at pp. 122–124, 150, 151, n. 5, 152, 166, 167. Cf. Vaughan v. Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 468Google Scholar.
11 ‘For intellectual defect, for mere mistake of judgement he’ (the prisoner) cannot be found guilty. That is the subject of the civil remedy': R. v. Elliott (1889) 16 Cox 710, at p. 713Google Scholar, per O'Brien J.; see also Kenny, op. cit. pp. 151, 160.
12 See R. v. Welch (1875) 1 Q. B. D. 23Google Scholar; Y. B. 2 Ed. III, f. 18, Hil. pl. 1; The Harlot's Case, Crompton's Justice, 24; and the judgments in R. v. Pembliton (1874) L. R. 2 C. C. R. 119Google Scholar; and R. v. Faulkner (1877) 11 Ir. Rep. C. L. 8Google Scholar.
13 (1888) 16 Cox 311, at p. 313.
14 R. v. Cheeseman (1836) 7 C. & P. 455Google Scholar; R. v. Griffin (1869) 11 Cox 402Google Scholar; R. v. Conner (1835) 7 C. & P. 438Google Scholar.
15 D. 50. 16. 213. 2.
16 It will in strict law make no difference whether he intended merely to hurt the victim or had no intention of harming the victim in the slightest degree, provided he realized that there was a risk to another's life in acting as he did.
17 E.g. Archbold (28th ed.), p. 889.
18 Op. cit. p. 116.
19 Op. cit. p. 120.
20 Op. cit. pp. 120–124.
21 R. v.Marriott (1838) 8 C. & P. 435Google Scholar; R. v. Saunders (1836) 7 C. & P. 277Google Scholar; R v. Jones (1901) 19 Cox 678Google Scholar.
22 R. v. Cheeseman (1836) 7 C. & P. 455Google Scholar; R. v. Griffin (1869) 11 Cox 402Google Scholar; R. v. Conner (1835) 7 C. & P. 438Google Scholar.
23 R. v. Cheeseman (1836) 7 C. & P. 455Google Scholar; R. v. Griffin (1869) 11 Cox 402Google Scholar; R. v. Conner (1835) 7 C. & P. 438Google Scholar.
24 Kenny, op. cit. 124.
25 See Russell on Crimes (8th ed.), p. 732, note (t) on R. v. Hopley (1860) 2 F. & F. 201Google Scholar.
26 Kenny, op. cit. p. 123.
27 R. v. Howlett (1836) 7 C. & P. 274Google Scholar (where a tin can was used); R. v. Hazel (1785) 1 Leach 368Google Scholar.
28 R. v. Hughes (1857) 1 Dears. & B. 248Google Scholar; R. v. Benge (1865) 4 F. & F. 504Google Scholar; R. v. Pittwood (1902) 19 T. L. B. 37Google Scholar.
29 [1899] 1 Q. B. 283Google Scholar. There appears to be confusion of Common Law and Statute contained in the judgment of the Court in this case.
30 Archbold's Criminal Pleading (28th ed.), p. 889; Kenny, op. cit. p. 119; Stephen's Dig. Cr. L. (7th ed.), p. 210, art. 294.
31 3 Inst. 56.
32 Comb. 406, at p. 409.
33 (1887) 16 Cox 306, at p. 309Google Scholar.
34 See also note (a) of the edd. on the report of R. v. Horsey (1862) 3 F. & F. 287Google Scholar.
35 (1883) 15 Cox 163Google Scholar.
36 (7th ed.), art. 294.
37 See also L. Q. R. No. clxxxvi, p. 167, on R. v. Baldessare [1930] 22 Cr. App. R. 70Google Scholar.
38 Except, apparently, in such a case as Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard [1920] A. C. 479Google Scholar.
39 Road Traffic Act, 1930, First Sched. 1.
40 As at present in the case of vehicles for which the Road Traffic Act (First Sched.) has fixed a speed limit.
41 If, however, it could have been proved that his driving was in the circumstances intrinsically likely to cause death, and that he must be deemed to have realized that possibility, then the crime would have been murder.
42 Law Journal, vol. lxxiv, p. 289.
43 As implied, e.g. in Stephen's Dig. Cr. L. (7th ed.), art. 300.
44 R. v. Elliott (1889) 16 Cox 710 (Ir.)Google Scholar, per O'Brien J. at p. 714.
45 Described as ‘the classic definition of manslaughter arising out of negligence’ (S. J. vol. 77, p. 54).
46 (1925) 94 L. J. K. B. 791Google Scholar.
47 Per Lord Hewart C.J. at pp. 793–4.
48 T. L. R. vol. 49, p. 190; W. N. Jan. 21, 1933, p. 28; L. J. vol. lxxv, p. 42; (1933) 24 Cr. App. R. 30Google Scholar.
49 Supra.
50 T. L. E. vol. 49, p. 190.
51 Save in the exceptional crime of Public Nuisance (for which, indeed, there can be liability without even negligence).
52 I.e. if the homicide (actus reus) is proved. If X was driving recklessly, contrary to section 11, and suddenly Y, without warning, darted out from the side into X's wheel, so that even if X had been driving very carefully he could not have avoided Y, then if Y was killed Y caused his own death, and X's defence to a charge of manslaughter will be ‘no actus reus.’ X will, however, be guilty of an offence under section 11.