Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
The case of R. v Nedrick can be easily explained by the Nedrick test.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Mon Jun 19 2006
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
Under the criminal act, intention can be described as an, "offence in which the requirement of mens rea is satisfied only by proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intention of committing the actus reus."1 Recklessness can best be summed up by the defendant being unaware of the foreseen consequences of his actions or knowing the risk but still continues to go ahead with it. The case of R. v Nedrick can be easily explained by the Nedrick test which provides us with two questions: 1. How probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendant's voluntary act? 2. Did he foresee that consequence?2 Nedrick knew that there were people in the house when he lit the house on fire, aware that there was a large possibility that the people would not escape alive. He was found guilty under intention but appealed the conviction stating it was recklessness because...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 147,187 others
Receive email updates for this category
- Simply tell us your email address and receive a weekly Study Help Email for FREE
- Receive 3 FREE essay views with each email
- Get all the latest essays from Coursework.Info & discussion from TheStudentRoom.co.uk
