Notes

The case illustrated above involves a fatal offence that falls under the category of an indictable offence which means the case requires a trial by judge and jury, as it pertains to a case of homicide.
This case is considered murder due to these factors: The presence of Actus Reus which means the act or omission, in this case is the fact Mr Dawson stabbed his wife would be considered the Actus Reus. A case study that highlights the Actus Reus is RV Pittwood (1902) in which the defendant was employed by a railway company to operate the gate at a level crossing across the track. He lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass across, but then failed to put it back down before going for his lunch break.
During his absence, a horse and cart crossed the track through the open gate, and was hit by a passing train. Both the horse and cart driver were killed. The court held that as the defendant had been under a contractual duty to close the gate, his omission to perform this obligation was capable of constituting the actus reus for murder. In the circumstances, the duty had been breached with gross and criminal negligence. Permission to appeal the conviction was therefore refused.
The Mens Rea is the intention and if Mens rea has been affected by mitigating circumstances creating a partial defence, it does not negate the liability of the defendant and will not lead to the acquittal. Mr Dawson intentionally killed his wife but was influenced by loss of control. The case of R V Woollin (1999) can showcase mens rea: the defendant threw his 3 month old baby son onto a hard surface. The baby sustained a fractured skull and died. The jury convicted as it was virtually certain that the defendant knew a 3 month old baby would die or suffer serious harm.
This case provides the current test for indirect intent. The conviction for murder was replaced with a conviction for manslaughter by the House of Lords due to a previous misdirection by the trial judge.
Intention requires the highest degree of fault of all the levels of mens rea. A person who intends to commit a crime, can generally be said to be more culpable than one who acts recklessly. There are two types of intent: Direct intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs.
Oblique intent can be said to exist where the event is a natural consequence of a voluntary act and they foresee it as such. The case of R V Inglis highlights intent:
The defendant, Frances Inglis, was convicted of murdering her son Thomas. Due to serious head injuries, Thomas was in a vegetative state. Thomas' family were advised that Thomas may be able to live an independent life. Frances, who suffered from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, did not believe the medical opinion and wished to end her son's suffering. Frances made two attempts to kill her son by injecting him with heroin, the second attempt succeeded. However she appealed against her conviction and sentence.