Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Can Someone Explain This Section Of Law To Me?
6 Answers
I have read it over but just don't understand what it means. It is section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,—
(a)shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
(b)shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.
Thank you!!
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,—
(a)shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
(b)shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.
Thank you!!
Answers
A scenario is the best way to explain it. Jack is furious with John and wants to scare him and warn him off. Jack goes to John's house and rings the doorbell and knocks the door - nobody comes to the door. Jack sets fire to the house not realising that John is in the shower and didn't hear the doorbell or the knocking. John dies. The court or jury cannot say that Jack set...
10:19 Sun 29th Oct 2017
A scenario is the best way to explain it.
Jack is furious with John and wants to scare him and warn him off. Jack goes to John's house and rings the doorbell and knocks the door - nobody comes to the door.
Jack sets fire to the house not realising that John is in the shower and didn't hear the doorbell or the knocking. John dies.
The court or jury cannot say that Jack set out to kill John even though it is a probable result of setting fire to the house. They have to look at all the evidence including Jack's intentions and motives.
Jack is furious with John and wants to scare him and warn him off. Jack goes to John's house and rings the doorbell and knocks the door - nobody comes to the door.
Jack sets fire to the house not realising that John is in the shower and didn't hear the doorbell or the knocking. John dies.
The court or jury cannot say that Jack set out to kill John even though it is a probable result of setting fire to the house. They have to look at all the evidence including Jack's intentions and motives.
accio
you have a lawyer
let him do the complex thought stuff on law
and not you try it yourself from scratch in a few days
lawyers DO find loopholes in complex law but it is not often
like this
http:// www.lea derlive .co.uk/ news/20 15/10/2 0/galle ry/team -gb-tri athlete -admits -supply ing-dru gs-7703 9/
where the Crown failed to seek the AG's permission for a cross border prosecution [ saying that it wasnt cross-border (so not permission rqd) and then when it became obvious that it was, went oops! all defendants acquitted on a point of law ]
the section says that the jury should decide on cause
by considering ALL evidence
I dont think this is a let-out for you
you have a lawyer
let him do the complex thought stuff on law
and not you try it yourself from scratch in a few days
lawyers DO find loopholes in complex law but it is not often
like this
http://
where the Crown failed to seek the AG's permission for a cross border prosecution [ saying that it wasnt cross-border (so not permission rqd) and then when it became obvious that it was, went oops! all defendants acquitted on a point of law ]
the section says that the jury should decide on cause
by considering ALL evidence
I dont think this is a let-out for you