UU����ֱ��

View the related practice notes about Malice

Transferred mens rea

The principle of transferred malice/transferred mens reaThe Supreme Court has stated that a better description for transferred malice might be ‘transferred mens rea’. The term ‘transferred malice’ has been described as ‘a misleading label’.This article will refer to the principle as ‘transferred mens rea’. This principle becomes relevant where a criminal intention leads to an unintended outcome or harm. It may apply provided that the outcome or harm is the same kind as intended, even if the actual victim is not the same as the intended victim.Latimer exemplifies the basic principle. D tried to assault V with his belt. He missed V and accidentally hit V2. D was found guilty of assault despite not having intended to hit V2. This reasoning was later applied in Mitchell, in which D assaulted V causing him to fall on V2. V2 was elderly and suffered a broken bone that led to her death in hospital. D was convicted of manslaughter despite having had no intention to assault V2. The court held that it...

Joint enterprise and secondary liability

Joint enterprise and secondary liability This Practice Note is concerned with secondary liability, sometimes called accessory liability: the liability that attaches to parties to a joint enterprise. In criminal law, where two or more parties embark on a joint enterprise, as either a principal or secondary party, each will be liable for acts committed in pursuance of that joint enterprise with the necessary intent, unless the principal goes beyond the scope of what was agreed. In the 2016 cases of R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen, the Supreme Court clarified and restored the test for the mental element of intent which must be established when a defendant is accused of being a secondary party to a crime, see News Analysis: Supreme Court rules on ‘joint enterprise’. Historically, a secondary party could be held responsible for a crime committed by a primary party if the secondary party foresaw the possibility of the primary party committing the crime. This was known as...

View the related precedents about Malice

Reply (defamation)

Reply (defamation) Claim No.:HQ [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING’S BENCH DIVISION ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST PARTIES: (1) [Insert full name of claimant/first claimant] (2) [[Insert full name of second claimant]]        [Claimant OR Claimants] and [Insert full name of defendant]        Defendant _____________________________________ REPLY _____________________________________ 1 The [Claimant joins OR Claimants join] issue with the Defendant on his Defence save for the admissions it contains and those averments therein which are expressly admitted below. Paragraph references are to the Defence. 2 The [Claimant denies OR Claimants deny OR that the words complained of in the meanings set out at paragraph 8.1 of the Defence are true. Without limitation to the generality of this denial as to the particulars of truth advanced to support those imputations, the [Claimant pleads OR Claimants plead] as follows: 2.1 [set out the claimant’s/claimants’ response to the Particulars of Truth set out by the defendant in his defence, admitting or denying as appropriate]. 3 It...