Judgement for the case R v Heard
Table Of Contents
Defendant was drunk and rubbed his penis against Victim’s leg and was convicted of sexual assault.
He appealed on the grounds that sexual assault should be considered a crime of specific intent.
CA said it was a crime of basic intent and therefore Defendant’s conviction was upheld. CA said that, broadly speaking specific intent crimes required mens rea to include thinking as to consequence or purpose, whereas basic intent crimes simply require mens rea as to the actus reus: not the consequences.
However, CA acknowledge that there was no universal test for distinguishing them; that it was a matter of policy; and that it was to be worked out on a case by case basis.
For Further Study on R v Heard
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
In depth notes with lecturer and textbook comments included as well as ...
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 | Problem Questions Notes (38 pages) |
| GDL Criminal Law | Sexual Offences Notes (9 pages) |
| Criminal law | Sexual Offences Notes (13 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.