Friday, September 14, 2012

Regina v. Prince case brief


Regina v. Prince: D convicted of taking an unmarried girl under 16 years of age out of the possession and against the will of her father in violation of the law. The girl told the D that she was 18 before he took her away and D honestly believed her. Court holds that b/c the act forbidden (taking the girl out of the possession of her father) is wrong itself, D ran the risk of her turning out to be under age and is rightly convicted.

    1. Bramwell concedes that if the mistake was about consent, that would be ok, but not about her age. He’s reading in a mental element but not in regards to the age requirement. Why is this plausible?
      1. What’s the different between mistake of consent and mistake of age? He wants to put the burden on this guy to find out how old she really is, but not to find out her father’s consent; taking her w/o consent is wrong and even if you don’t know how wrong it is, you’re running that risk.
    2. The dissent argues that if the facts, as D believed them to be were true and she was 18, D would have done nothing criminal. Thus a mistake of facts on reasonable grounds should be an excuse to this criminal charge.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...