Jump to content

What is premeditation?


Recommended Posts

The definition of premeditation doesn't change because of the circumstances. Premeditation and its meaning will always be the same. As you say, the facts will determine whether the kids falls within that definition. In other words what the op is asking is something that can't yet be answered.

 

It really can be answered. The reason the child had a knife means nothing. He had the mens rea (intent to kill or cause GBH) and by the sounds of it committed the actus reus in that he stabbed and killed the teacher.

 

Go deeper and look at the Nedrick direction. Was death or serious injury a virtual certainty? Of course.

 

That's all that matters.

(I can bore for England on law, being a lawyer and all).

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really can be answered. The reason the child had a knife means nothing. He had the mens rea (intent to kill or cause GBH) and by the sounds of it committed the actus reus in that he stabbed and killed the teacher.

 

Just to clarify. The reason for having a knife in possession means nothing to the outcome of the act? In other words, I simply have a knife so therefore I have an intent?

 

That's all that matters.

(I can bore for England on law, being a lawyer and all).

 

On the contrary, you go ahead and bore, without it it'll be all speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really can be answered. The reason the child had a knife means nothing. He had the mens rea (intent to kill or cause GBH) and by the sounds of it committed the actus reus in that he stabbed and killed the teacher.

 

Go deeper and look at the Nedrick direction. Was death or serious injury a virtual certainty? Of course.

 

That's all that matters.

(I can bore for England on law, being a lawyer and all).

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

Pfft. well I watch Law and Order! Take that! :hihi:

 

Good to hear a legit answer to this, thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you stab someone in the chest a few times you know that you will more than likely kill someone, so would this be murder regardless of premeditation? As apposed to someone carries out a premeditated plan to stab someone in the leg, severs an artery, which then kills someone. Would this be manslaughter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify. The reason for having a knife in possession means nothing to the outcome of the act? In other words, I simply have a knife so therefore I have an intent?

 

[/Quote]

 

Absolutely. It could be mitigating in terms of sentence (although carrying a knife if very much disliked by Judges) but the intent relates only to the action of stabbing.

 

The relevance of why they had a knife comes into play in provocation but not in cases like this. Nedrick is the lead case. If death or serious harm is a virtual certainty of an action then that is the intended result.

 

 

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2014 at 22:02 ----------

 

If you stab someone in the chest a few times you know that you will more than likely kill someone, so would this be murder regardless of premeditation? As apposed to someone carries out a premeditated plan to stab someone in the leg and then severs an artery, which then kills someone, would this be would be manslaughter?

 

Both murder. The intent when you stab is to kill or cause serious harm. It goes back to Nedrick, Woollen and the other intent cases. Everyone knows that if you stab someone you'll cause GBH or potentially kill. That's enough intent for murder (although the latter may be pleaded to constructive manslaughter in reality).

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. It could be mitigating in terms of sentence (although carrying a knife if very much disliked by Judges) but the intent relates only to the action of stabbing.

 

The relevance of why they had a knife comes into play in provocation but not in cases like this. Nedrick is the lead case. If death or serious harm is a virtual certainty of an action then that is the intended result.

 

 

That certainly makes sense, it's not as though you intend to stab someone alive or with LBK (lovely bodily kindness)

 

So you can see no reason for the term "premeditated" used in the Leeds case?..from a legal perspective that is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That certainly makes sense, it's not as though you intend to stab someone alive or with LBK (lovely bodily kindness)

 

So you can see no reason for the term "premeditated" used in the Leeds case?..from a legal perspective that is?

 

Not really.

Two possibilities are...

 

Firstly sentencing - planned attacks lead to longer sentences. Spur of the moment attacks lead to shorter sentences as you can imagine.

 

Secondly the media - journalists don't understand law hence the ridiculous headlines about damages in civil claims. They could well have used the word thinking it had relevance.

 

That's all I can think of.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.