Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Chalmers, J. (2004)
Languages: English
Types: Article
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 6 Transco, per Lord Hamilton at 54.
    • 7 Lord Osborne specifically describes this as a “criminal intent”: Transco, per Lord Osborne at 45.
    • 8 Transco, per Lord Hamilton at 54.
    • 9 It has sometimes been argued that negligence, being inadvertent, cannot amount to mens rea because it does not involve awareness of risk and is therefore not a state of mind. But that is to attach too much weight to a “question of nomenclature” and does not address the real question of whether negligence is an appropriate basis for criminal responsibility. See H L A Hart, “Negligence, mens rea and criminal responsibility”, in Punishment and Responsibility (1968), 136.
    • 10 Transco, per Lord Hamilton at 55.
    • 11 D Hume, Commentaries on the Law of Scotland, Respecting Crimes, 4th edn by B R Bell (1844), vol 1, 21.
    • 12 J H A Macdonald, A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law of Scotland, 5th edn by J Walker and D J Stevenson (1948), 1.
    • 13 Macdonald, 11. It should be noted that the references by Lord Hamilton and this note to Macdonald's text are references to interpolations in Walker and Stevenson's fifth and final edition. Previous editions asserted that wicked intent would be presumed, and did not address the issue of mistaken belief in this way.
    • 14 See Hume, 1, 73-75.
    • 28 Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter (Law Com No 237, 1996).
    • 29 Home Office, Reforming the Law on Involuntary Manslaughter: the Government's Proposals (2000).
    • 30 See, in particular, B Sullivan, “Corporate killing - some government proposals” [2001] Crim LR 319; P R Glazebrook, “A better way of convicting businesses of avoidable deaths and injuries?” (2002) 61 CLJ 405.
    • 31 See “Blunkett bill to take aim at firms that cause fatal accidents”, The Independent, 10 Nov 2003.
    • 32 The Law Commission's proposals would have applied only to corporations, while the Home Office proposals would have applied to any “undertaking”. Arguably, the first is improperly narrow and the second improperly wide. See Sullivan, note 30 above, 34-36.
    • 33 For a particularly caustic evaluation of the Law Commission's proposals in this respect, see Glazebrook, note 30 above, 409-414.
    • 34 Glazebrook, note 30 above.
    • 35 See C Wells, Corporations and Criminal Responsibility, 2nd edn (2001), 5-8.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article