| 单词 | Wilfully |
| 释义 | 故意 In criminal law, intentionally and not accidentally: R v Ryan (1914) 10 Cr App Rep 4 (CCA). It also encompasses recklessness: R v Sheppard [1981] AC 394, [1980] 3 All ER 899 (HL). Where a statutory offence prohibits conduct performed ‘wilfully’, it is generally sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the accused acted recklessly: Barnes v HKSAR [2000] 3 HKLRD 279 (CFA). However, in some statutes the use of ‘wilfully’ may not always imply knowledge as to all the elements of the offence as, for example, in the offence of wilfully killing a house pigeon which requires proof of an intention to kill a pigeon but not proof that the accused knew precisely what sort of pigeon he killed: Cotteril v Penn [1936] 1 KB 53 (DC). Similarly in a charge of wilful neglect of a child it has to be proved that the accused appreciated that his conduct or failure to act or a lack of care on his part might put the health of the child at risk: R v Sheppard, supra. See also Recklessness. 根據刑法，故意指有意而非意外：R v Ryan (1914) 10 Cr App Rep 4 （英國刑事上訴法院）。故意亦包括罔顧後果：R v Sheppard [1981] AC 394, [1980] 3 All ER 899 （上議院）。凡法定罪行禁止「故意」開展的行為，一般足以令控方證明被控方罔顧後果行事：Barnes v HKSAR [2000] 3 HKLRD 279（終審法院）。然而，在某些法規中，「故意」的使用並不始終意味著知悉該罪行的所有因素，例如，在故意射殺家鴿的罪行中，就需要提供證明射殺家鴿意圖的證據，而非被控方確切知悉其所射殺的家鴿種類的證據：Cotteril v Penn [1936] 1 KB 53 （英國地方法院）。類似地，在故意疏忽照顧兒童的控罪中，應證明被控方意識到，其作為或不作為或未履行義務對兒童疏於照顧，可能令兒童的健康受到威脅：R v Sheppard, 見上文。另見Recklessness。adv. |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。