Summary
Summary - Criminal Law
- Module
- Criminal Law
- Institution
- SOAS , University Of London (SOAS)
summary of notes on 'intention' (1st year law topic)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
MENS REA: INTENTIONrequires the highest degree of fault of all the levels of men's rea. A person who intends to
commit a crime can generally be said to be more culpable than one who acts recklessly
- a defendant will be found to have intended a consequence if they desire the conse-
quence to follow their actions. (is very likely or extremely unlikely to occur?) e.g. D who
intends to shoot another person will be liable regardless of whether their intended victim
is standing next to them or is several hundred metres away. The defendant has the in-
tention to kill whatever the outcome of their actions and can be liable for attempted mur-
der, for example, even if they do not manage to shoot the victim.
(INIDRECT/OBLIQUE INENTION)
The defendant can be considered to intend a consequence of their actions if the
consequence is one that the defendant does not want but which he knows is vir-
tually certain to occur as a result of their actions. This is known as indirect or
oblique intent.
(R V WOOLIN 1999)
The intention for murder requires foresight of virtual certainty, not merely a sub-
stantial risk, of death or serious harm
(HOL) the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary inten-
tion unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (bar-
ring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the
defendant appreciated that such was the case
- the jury should consider whether the result of the defendant’s actions was virtually cer-
tain to occur and, if so, whether the defendant was aware that they were virtually cer-
tain to occur. If the answer to these questions was yes, the jury could find the defen-
dant intended their actions.
- This altered the position in Nedrick slightly where it had been held that the jury could
imply intention. In other words, the jury would not be required to place an intention in
the mind of the defendant by implying that it existed, they could simply find that the
defendant intended the consequences of their actions.
(R V NEDRICK 1986)
-held that the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer intention
unless they are satisfied that they felt sure that death or serious bodily injury
was a virtual certainty of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant knew
this.
- (LORD LANE CJ) the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the nec-
essary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual
certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions
and that the defendant appreciated that
(DPP V SMITH 1961)
- The intention seems to be a concept which naturally requires a subjective in-
quiry. It seems somehow wrong to decide what the defendant's intention was
by reference to what a reasonable person would have contemplated. However,
originally an objective test was applied to decide oblique intent
- The House of Lords held that an objective test applied to the men's rea of in-
tent for murder, therefore there was no misdirection and the murder convic-
tion was to be reinstated. Where the accused is capable of forming an intent in
1
, that he is not insane nor suffering from diminished responsibility, any actual in-
tention is immaterial,
(R V HYAM 1975)
• The defendant had burnt down the house of her rival in love, thereby killing her
children.
• The judge directed the jury to convict the defendant of murder if she knew that it
was highly probable that her act would cause death or serious bodily harm
• The jury convicted her of murder
The confusion was cleared in R v Woollin where it was held that the right test was
whether there was the foresight of virtual certainty that a voluntary act will cause death
or serious harm
(LORD HAILSHAM DISSENT) : I do not believe that knowledge or any degree of
foresight is enough. Knowledge or foresight is at best material which entitles or
compels a jury to draw the necessary inference as to the intention.
It does not matter in such circumstances whether the defendant desires those conse-
quences or not.’
NOTE :
consideration of indirect or oblique intent is only really necessary where the offence re-
quires intention as the men's rea element. These types of offences are known as offences
of specific intent - only intention will suffice. Where the men's rea is satisfied by intention
or recklessness, the offences are defined as offences of basic intent.
ULTERIOR INTENT :
refers to offences where an additional it is necessary to show that the defendant in-
tended to do something in addition to the basic men's rea of the offence.
- section 9(1) THEFT ACT 1968 proves ulterior intent can be proof of a 2ND
MR element.
(a person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or part of a building as a
trespasser, with intent to (steal anything in the building, inflict grievous bodily
harm on any person within the building or commit unlawful damage to the build-
ing or anything within it)
Note: the first MR element of burglary is D enters the building as a trespasser :
(D must be found to know that they are entering as a trespasser or at least fore-
see a risk that they are doing so (intention or recklessness). Satisfying this men's
rea element is not enough, however, because it is also necessary to show that
the defendant intended to commit one of the additional offences (stealing, inflict-
ing grievous bodily harm or causing unlawful damage = ulterior MR).
BASIC INTENT :
refers to offences where either intention or recklessness will satisfy men's rea.
SPECIFIC INTENT :
refers to offences where the intention is necessary to satisfy men's rea.
2
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller hananosman. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £4.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
78252 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now