153 From John Waldron Crabbe to George Crabbe, jun.

Crabbe, George; Crabbé, J.; Faulkner, Thomas C.; Blair, Rhonda L.

doi:10.1093/oseo/instance.00052583

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Mental Requirement of the Doctrine of Common Purpose and the Mens Rea of Murder At common law, the mens rea of murder is satisfied by either intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon another, 79 or by foresight of the probability of such a consequence. 80 In NSW, the current law of murder is found in section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 81 . The difference between the head of reckless murder found at common law and in section 18 of the Crimes Act, is that the latter is confined to foresight of the probability of death, not extending to foresight of the probability of grievous bodily harm.…”

Section: [Emphasis Added]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctrine of Common Purpose as a Ground of Criminal Liability under the Criminal Laws of Jordan and Australia: A Comparative Study

Qudah¹

2015

JLCJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Article is a comparative study of the doctrine of common purpose as a ground of criminal liability for the commission of an additional offence under the criminal laws of Jordan and Australia. Despite its various problematic aspects, there is no explicit regulation on this area of criminal complicity in the Jordanian Penal Code 1960 No 16 JPC. Whereas, in NSW although this doctrine is considered in many case laws, yet the approach adopted by the courts in setting its ambit is inconsistent and obscure. This Article considers the substantive law on this aspect of criminal complicity in both jurisdictions, and explores how such criminal liability can be understood in terms of the notion of individual autonomy. To this end, the Article is divided into three sections. In section 1, it addresses the concept and components of individual autonomy, while in Sections 2 and 3 it uses this notion to analyze the common purpose doctrine as a ground of criminal liability in NSW and Jordan. The comparative analysis conducted in this paper shows that the criminal law in NSW holds liable offenders who embark upon a primary criminal venture contemplating as a possible outcome the commission of another incidental offence by the co-offender during the course of carrying out that primary criminal venture. Various different possibilities as to the type of such contemplation are considered in this regard. Comparatively, it is demonstrated that there is no explicit legal provision in the JPC concerning this area of criminal complicity towards which specific suggestions for possible law reform are provided.

show abstract

Section: [Emphasis Added]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctrine of Common Purpose as a Ground of Criminal Liability under the Criminal Laws of Jordan and Australia: A Comparative Study

Qudah¹

2015

JLCJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As early as 1919, when Besredka (6) described immunity to Shigella in orally immunized rabbits which was not correlated with serum antibodies, it became clear that a specialized defence system existed at mucosal sites. Whereas IgM and IgG antibodies are the predominant isotypes produced in systemic lymphoid tissue, it is now well documented that a special class of antibody, IgA, predominates in most mucosal secretions and is the principal immunoglobulin produced by plasma cells underlying mucosal epithelia (19). In 1961 Hanson (38) noticed a difference between milk and serum IgA in humans and subsequently it was discovered that there exist two basic forms of IgA, secretory (slgA) and non-secretory.…”

Section: Humoral Immunitymentioning

confidence: 99%