Other Sports1 min ago
How Do You Explain?
If someone does something intentionally to another person (eg -assault/abuse) but claims that they didn't realise the damage it would do - is this described as :-
intent (hostile)?
or
intent (negligent)? or something else
and
2) I'm looking to find a simple! legal definition for unjustifiable interference?
Any help at all much appreciated. Thanks
intent (hostile)?
or
intent (negligent)? or something else
and
2) I'm looking to find a simple! legal definition for unjustifiable interference?
Any help at all much appreciated. Thanks
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Don't think there is one for (2). Crimes have two elements : the wrongful act itself (' actus reus') and the state of mind required (mens rea) to make the person guilty. [There are some offences, called 'strict liability offences', where the state of mind, the intent, is irrelevant. These are nearly all minor offences such as speeding] Each offence is defined...
23:20 Sat 04th Jan 2014
I think you may be confusing two terms - intentionally and recklessly.
If I throw a brick at you and I mean it to hit you that is intentional. If I throw a brick at nobody in particular with no intention to do anybody any harm but it hits you that is reckless.
You could do something intentionally but because of other circumstances the damage caused is far greater than your intent. For example, you could hit somebody with no particular force (which would normally cause, say, a bump on the head) but the victim may have a thin skull and suffer serious injury or even death. But your action was intentional. In the event of a conviction the victim’s thin skull would mitigate the offence insofar as the resultant damage may not have been reasonably foreseen, but your action would still be intentional.
If I throw a brick at you and I mean it to hit you that is intentional. If I throw a brick at nobody in particular with no intention to do anybody any harm but it hits you that is reckless.
You could do something intentionally but because of other circumstances the damage caused is far greater than your intent. For example, you could hit somebody with no particular force (which would normally cause, say, a bump on the head) but the victim may have a thin skull and suffer serious injury or even death. But your action was intentional. In the event of a conviction the victim’s thin skull would mitigate the offence insofar as the resultant damage may not have been reasonably foreseen, but your action would still be intentional.
Don't think there is one for (2).
Crimes have two elements : the wrongful act itself (' actus reus') and the state of mind required (mens rea) to make the person guilty. [There are some offences, called 'strict liability offences', where the state of mind, the intent, is irrelevant. These are nearly all minor offences such as speeding]
Each offence is defined with the necessary mens rea stated. This may be a specific intent: with intent to occasion grievous bodily harm, with intent to cause loss to another, and so forth.Or it may be defined as negligent, or reckless, or one of those with an alternative specific intent :damaged property intending to damage it or being reckless as to whether it would be damaged, for example. Occasionally the mental element is not put in terms but is understood, from authority or by other words in the Act itself : did drive dangerously (dangerously includes some element of recklessness ) , did drive carelessly (includes some element of negligence).
Unjustifiable must import some mental element. What did the accused intend when he interfered? If he did not intend what is in the definition, he is not guilty. If he did, but not that the consequences would be so serious, he is guilty but may have some mitigation. Or was he being reckless or negligent in interfering? Then he is guilty,if the definition includes that and if the consequences were reasonably judged as forseeable and likely by an ordinary person, whatever the accused thought, if he thought at all..
Crimes have two elements : the wrongful act itself (' actus reus') and the state of mind required (mens rea) to make the person guilty. [There are some offences, called 'strict liability offences', where the state of mind, the intent, is irrelevant. These are nearly all minor offences such as speeding]
Each offence is defined with the necessary mens rea stated. This may be a specific intent: with intent to occasion grievous bodily harm, with intent to cause loss to another, and so forth.Or it may be defined as negligent, or reckless, or one of those with an alternative specific intent :damaged property intending to damage it or being reckless as to whether it would be damaged, for example. Occasionally the mental element is not put in terms but is understood, from authority or by other words in the Act itself : did drive dangerously (dangerously includes some element of recklessness ) , did drive carelessly (includes some element of negligence).
Unjustifiable must import some mental element. What did the accused intend when he interfered? If he did not intend what is in the definition, he is not guilty. If he did, but not that the consequences would be so serious, he is guilty but may have some mitigation. Or was he being reckless or negligent in interfering? Then he is guilty,if the definition includes that and if the consequences were reasonably judged as forseeable and likely by an ordinary person, whatever the accused thought, if he thought at all..
This is so helpful Fred - thank you. With your explanation I can make sense of stuff. I am still trying to think my way through things so do bear with me here - hope I make sense -this might make things clearer.
New Judge - yes I can understand why you said that. Thanks.
It has been labelled in terms of criminal acts yet it is a civil matter - tort law. No criminal proceedings as yet. Intended acts - all of them causing ruin, loss of investments etc. and health/other things. Admitted to.
From what Fred says about interference - it looks like guilty (but yes the extent will be the thing - the mental side of intent interesting (I didn't know this)
The thing is the true extent of damage done was not apparent straight away so they may say that the consequences could not be reasonably judged as forseeable by them. Thats what I'm thinking anyway.
New Judge - yes I can understand why you said that. Thanks.
It has been labelled in terms of criminal acts yet it is a civil matter - tort law. No criminal proceedings as yet. Intended acts - all of them causing ruin, loss of investments etc. and health/other things. Admitted to.
From what Fred says about interference - it looks like guilty (but yes the extent will be the thing - the mental side of intent interesting (I didn't know this)
The thing is the true extent of damage done was not apparent straight away so they may say that the consequences could not be reasonably judged as forseeable by them. Thats what I'm thinking anyway.
1 to 9 of 9
