It has been confirmed that the mens rea extends to the whole of the actus reus. In R v Smith [1974] 1 ALL ER 632, the Court of Appeal held that it is insufficient that D does an act that damages property intentionally. What must also be proved is that [...]. Smith, who lived in rented accommodation with his brother, had installed electrical wiring to connect a stereo system. He had also, with his brother's help and the landlord's permission, put down floorboards, wall panels and roofing material. After two years, Smith decided to vacate the flat and asked permission for his brother to remain: the landlord declined. After this, Smith smashed the wall panels, floorboards and roofing material, doing so he said to gain access to the wiring that he had fitted, in order to remove it.
Answer
he knew, or was reckless as to whether, the property belonged to another
Tags
#cd #crime #law
Question
It has been confirmed that the mens rea extends to the whole of the actus reus. In R v Smith [1974] 1 ALL ER 632, the Court of Appeal held that it is insufficient that D does an act that damages property intentionally. What must also be proved is that [...]. Smith, who lived in rented accommodation with his brother, had installed electrical wiring to connect a stereo system. He had also, with his brother's help and the landlord's permission, put down floorboards, wall panels and roofing material. After two years, Smith decided to vacate the flat and asked permission for his brother to remain: the landlord declined. After this, Smith smashed the wall panels, floorboards and roofing material, doing so he said to gain access to the wiring that he had fitted, in order to remove it.
Answer
?
Tags
#cd #crime #law
Question
It has been confirmed that the mens rea extends to the whole of the actus reus. In R v Smith [1974] 1 ALL ER 632, the Court of Appeal held that it is insufficient that D does an act that damages property intentionally. What must also be proved is that [...]. Smith, who lived in rented accommodation with his brother, had installed electrical wiring to connect a stereo system. He had also, with his brother's help and the landlord's permission, put down floorboards, wall panels and roofing material. After two years, Smith decided to vacate the flat and asked permission for his brother to remain: the landlord declined. After this, Smith smashed the wall panels, floorboards and roofing material, doing so he said to gain access to the wiring that he had fitted, in order to remove it.
Answer
he knew, or was reckless as to whether, the property belonged to another
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it confirmed that the mens rea extends to the whole of the actus reus. In R v Smith [1974] 1 ALL ER 632, the Court of Appeal held that it is insufficient that D does an act that damages property intentionally. What must also be proved is that <span>he knew, or was reckless as to whether, the property belonged to another. Smith, who lived in rented accommodation with his brother, had installed electrical wiring to connect a stereo system. He had also, with his brother's help and the landlord's permiss
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.