On 30/12/2011 18:41, ian batten wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:29 pm, Bevan wrote:
The classic excuse "but we didn't intend
to kill anyone" should be debarred as a means of seeking conviction
under a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But "we didn't intend to kill anyone" is pretty much the definition of
manslaughter: murder requires mens rea, manslaughter doesn't. Not
permitting that defence turns almost all manslaughter cases into
murder. In which case, packing your bag whilst driving through red
signals on a train where the ATC has been isolated becomes murder.

ian

Trying to be too brief led to confusion. I meant the "We didn't intend
to kill anyone" comment to apply mainly to cases like the Elm Park train
"murders". Deliberately damaging railways (for example) is reckless,
dangerous behaviour, which all rational people ought to realise might
have fatal consequences.


Bevan

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:34:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 18:41, ian batten wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:29 pm, Bevan wrote:
The classic excuse "but we didn't intend
to kill anyone" should be debarred as a means of seeking conviction
under a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But "we didn't intend to kill anyone" is pretty much the definition of
manslaughter: murder requires mens rea, manslaughter doesn't. Not
permitting that defence turns almost all manslaughter cases into
murder. In which case, packing your bag whilst driving through red
signals on a train where the ATC has been isolated becomes murder.

ian

Trying to be too brief led to confusion. I meant the "We didn't intend
to kill anyone" comment to apply mainly to cases like the Elm Park train
"murders". Deliberately damaging railways (for example) is reckless,
dangerous behaviour, which all rational people ought to realise might
have fatal consequences.

"Ought to realise" does not constitute intent. It very likely hints
that recklessness is present but that again is not intent.

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:34:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 18:41, ian batten wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:29 pm, Bevan wrote:
The classic excuse "but we didn't intend
to kill anyone" should be debarred as a means of seeking conviction
under a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But "we didn't intend to kill anyone" is pretty much the definition of
manslaughter: murder requires mens rea, manslaughter doesn't. Not
permitting that defence turns almost all manslaughter cases into
murder. In which case, packing your bag whilst driving through red
signals on a train where the ATC has been isolated becomes murder.

Trying to be too brief led to confusion. I meant the "We didn't intend
to kill anyone" comment to apply mainly to cases like the Elm Park train
"murders". Deliberately damaging railways (for example) is reckless,
dangerous behaviour, which all rational people ought to realise might
have fatal consequences.

"Ought to realise" does not constitute intent. It very likely hints
that recklessness is present but that again is not intent.

Murder is one of the few crimes where recklessness is not sufficient intent.
But the intent only has to be to cause at least GBH so there may be no
intention actually to kill.

--
Colin Rosenstiel