R v Gilmour [2000] 2 Cr App R. 407
Judgement for the case R v Gilmour
Table Of Contents
Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 both intended that Defendant 1 should set V’s house on fire, Defendant 1 intending that V should be killed, whereas Defendant 2 intended merely that V should be frightened.
Defendant 2 didn’t know of Defendant 1’s intention. V died.
HL held that it was possible for Defendant 2’s manslaughter conviction to be sustained despite Defendant 1 being convicted for a greater crime.
The HL said there was no convincing reason why if someone was facilitating an act whose details he knew and had the necessary corresponding mens rea that he should not be convicted of a crime.
It would be morally wrong for Defendant 2 to escape all liability.
For Further Study on R v Gilmour
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Criminal Law | Homicide Notes (20 pages) |
| Criminal Law | Mens Rea — Intention Recklessness And Negligence Notes (24 pages) |
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.