Talk:English criminal law

In many places the phrase 'negative the mens rea' is used. Surely it should be negate? Cosnahang 12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Please feel free to change it. Wikidea 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following passages because I find them innaccurate. The mens rea for robbery does not consist merely of the specific intent to use force etc. Robbery is a form of aggravated theft. That means that the mens rea includes dishonesty. My understanding of the decisions in R v Feely and R v Ghosh is that it would be open to a jury to acquit Robin Hood if they were of the opinion that his actions were not "dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people" or, if they did not accept that, they were of the opinion that he did not realise that they were. See for example Professor Griews book. In any event these passages do not explain the real issue. James500 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If Mr. Hood robs from rich Mr. Nottingham because his motive is to give the money to poor Mrs. Marian, his "good intentions" do not change his criminal intention to commit robbery.

More

I have cut the following because I think it is diffuse and just reproduces the material linked to. James500 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Criminal damage is the willful damaging of another's property. Theft is included in property offenses, defined as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with an intention to permanently deprive the other of it.^[1] Robbery involves theft from a person and an element of force.

• Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183

I have cut the following. There are links to both assault and common assault in the article. Both of those articles contain a link to Tuberville v Savage. I think that to discuss it here is excessive. What is the criterion for inclusion? If we discuss common assault rather than link to the article on it, should we not discuss all offences. And if we have this case, should we not have every case? Why single out this case in particular? We cannot put the whole of the criminal law in this article.

Also, what this case is about is when it is acceptable to make a pre-emptive attack. The remarks about psychic assault were obiter.James500 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For instance, in Tuberville v Savage, a Knight told a man that were it not for the assizes being in town he would not tolerate the man's language toward him. This was considered not threatening, not an assault, since the man could not be in fear of immediate harm, as the traveling courts were nearby.

I have cut the following. (1) The words "among the strongest" are so vague that they could mean just about anything. (2) The definition of rape appears to be framed on the 1976 and 1994 Acts and is therefore out of date. Those definitions are adequately discussed in the article Rape in English law and do not need to be reproduced in this article.James500 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rape and sexual abuse count among the strongest crimes in terms of sentencing. Rape involves sexual intercourse when the victim has not positively consented to the act.

I have cut this as it duplicates the article common assault and I do not think it is necessary.James500 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Assault is intentionally putting another person into fear of immediate harm.

I have cut the following because it duplicates the article Murder in English law to which there is a link.James500 (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Murder is considered by many the most serious crime. It differs from manslaughter because murder is committed with the intention that the victim would die or be caused serious bodily harm. This means that mens rea was present.

I have cut the following passage from the lead. The offences mentioned are listed further down in the article in the section "criminal offences" (or in articles to which that section links such as offence against the person. The list is random and is not really a summary. James500 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the most serious criminal offences involve death, such as murder and manslaughter. Non-deadly offences include actual or grievous bodily harm. A variety of offences relate to property, like criminal damage, theft, robbery or burglary. One can be liable for helping another person's criminal act, conspiring to do something prohibited or merely attempting an offence.