Moloney Case Study

Eldred Hosea Moye Sr. enlisted in the United States Navy in October 1984 at Military Entrance Processing station, Fort Jackson, South Carolina. He attended Operations Specialist “A” School in Damneck, VA, where he was meritoriously advanced to Operations Specialist Seaman Apprentice. He quickly rose through the enlisted ranks and would become a United States Chief Petty Officer in 7 years, which is a great achievement for this sailor because is usually takes 10 or more years to get promoted to that rank.

In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.

guilt must relate to the state of mind of the defendant at the time of

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) was a momentous decision of High Court of Australia in 1992 which acknowledged the native title in Australia for the first time. This report discusses four aspects with regards to the Mabo (No 2) case: the background and the decision of the Mabo (No 2) case, the impacts of Mabo (No 2) on Australian legal system, the weaknesses of the current legal system in relation to Native Title and the future prospect of Native Title.

At the school board meeting held on last Tuesday, Jamey Mullion was voted in to serve as the 2017 president.

Let us start by examining a not-so-innocent question of fact from the Prohibition Era, where the accused in Proctor sought review of the Oklahoma County District Court judgment, which convicted him of owning a place with intent or the purpose of unlawfully selling, bartering, and giving away intoxicating liquors. Indeed, Proctor mentioned his intention to friends. Yet, the issue asks, may the state criminalize an unlawful intent unrelated to an open act of possessing property for a liable correlation (Quimbee)? Based on the aforementioned Oklahoma statute that criminalized alcoholic intent, the defendant petitioned the Court of Appeals in

24 (1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence. (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 from Laws Website)

Indigenous Australians have been fighting for their civil rights since European colonisation in 1788, in particular, for their rights to land ownership. Prior to the Mabo land rights case, there was very little success when it came to indigenous Australians making claims. The Mabo case took land rights to the highest court in Australia. It succeeded in achieving land rights and overturning Terra Nullius. The Mabo case helped to continue to chip away at the barriers of civil rights. The Mabo Case was a step towards Indigenous equality.

Exploration of Bob's Case through MOHO Concerning the popularity of conceptual models, a study found that the Model of Human Occupation (MOHO) was the most frequent model (80.7%) that the nationwide therapists used to occupational therapy practice (Lee et al, 2008), which demonstrated the importance and uniqueness of MOHO. In Bob's case, he is diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis that hinders his engagement in daily life activities. Therefore, the therapist might use MOHO in working with Bob in order to use the concepts to plan holistic and high-quality treatment and intervene the case. As MOHO serves as a client-centred model, the therapists need to understand the client fully and consider the client as the central of therapy. Then, the

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,

n criminal law, the mens rea refers to the defendant's state of mind at the time of their crime and there are several levels reflecting the need to have a particular mens rea for the offence committed. For example, in murder or a S:18 offence in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the mens rea present must be that of specific intent, which is where the defendant desired that particular outcome of their actions. However, it was held in R v Cunningham 1982, that the intention to cause serious harm was enough to satisfy the mens rea for murder. This shows that, where murder cases are concerned, that it is relatively easy to prove the required mens rea and in doing so the concept of fault is often satisfied. This is once again shown in oblique

How should we engage in such speculation safely without overstepping our bounds? This question is particularly important in law—we don’t want to equip judges with the power to engage in pure, unbounded speculation. Sometimes the cost of speculation is high, but the cost of abnegation may be higher. I certainly hope that the first section, which offered examples that were intended to demonstrated the indispensability of counterfactual reasoning, was convincing enough to suggest that we indeed do sometimes need to engage in the enterprise. I certainly do not advocate that we engage in counterfactual reasoning recklessly or without care—quite on the contrary, I advocate a keen awareness of our counterfactual reasoning.

Mens Rea: The act must be accompanied by a particular state of mind. Mens rea does not equate to intentionality. For example, your neighbor’s dog barks incessantly causing her to want to cause harm to the animal. One day, she shoots the dog with the intent to kill it thus eliminating the cause of her stress which was the incessant barking. The Model Penal Code drafters made it clear that different kinds of mens rea could be attached to different components of a crime (Sampsell-Jones, 2013, p. 1458). The drafters changed the word intent and replaced it with ‘purposefully’.

Another element is Specific Intent, which is a mental purpose, target or intention to accomplishing a specific damage or result by acting outlaw. The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to define a special state of mind that is mandatory, with a physical act, to constitute crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually means calculatedly or knowledgeably.

in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law