R v Mohan (John Patrick) [1976]
- Reported: [1976] Q.B. 1; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 859
- Year: 1976
- Court: Court of Appeal
FACTS:-
A police officer on duty saw a motor car being driven by the appellant. The vehicle appeared to be exceeding the permitted speed limit. The officer stood in the path of the vehicle and signalled the appellant to stop. The vehicle slowed down but, when about ten yards away from the officer, accelerated hard and was driven straight at the officer who moved out of its way in order to avoid being knocked down.
The Appellant was charged with indictment on three counts: (1) that on 22 April 1974 he attempted to cause grievous bodily harm to PC Harry James Sales with intent to so him grievous bodily harm (2) on 22 April 1974, having the charge of a motor vehicle, he had attempted, by wanton driving, to cause bodily harm to PC Sales (3) that on 22 April 1974 he drove a motor vehicle on a road in a manner which was dangerous to the public.
The appellant was convicted on that count and appealed.
The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, before Lord Justice James, Justice Talbot and Justice Michael Davies.
HELD:-
The appeal was allowed.
In order to prove the offence of attempt to commit a crime the Crown had to prove a specific intent, which is a decision by the accused to bring about, so far as it lay within his power, the commission of the offence which it was alleged that he had attempted to commit. It was not sufficient to establish that the accused knew or foresaw that the consequences of his act would, unless interrupted, be likely to be the commission of the complete offence, nor was a reckless state of mind sufficient to constitute the necessary mens rea.
Lord Justice James stated that the appeal was about the question what state of mind is required to be proved as ingredient of the offence of attempting to commit a crime. Lord Justice James found that the final direction was bad in law. Lord Justice James stated that ‘not only did the judge maintain the exclusion of ‘intent’ as an ingredient of the offence in count 2, but he introduced an alternative basis for a conviction which did not and could not constitute the necessary mens rea. The appeal was allowed against conviction on count 2.
In the interests of justice, the jury convicted of dangerous driving and the conviction stood, alongside a sentence of 12 months imprisonment.
Related posts:
