Intention Flashcards
What is direct intention in criminal law?
A. The defendant aimed to cause the consequence
B. The defendant caused harm by mistake
C. The defendant acted out of anger
D. The defendant foresaw a possible consequence
A. The defendant aimed to cause the consequence
Explanation: Direct intention is when the outcome was the defendant’s purpose or objective.
What does the Woollin test help determine?
A. Whether the defendant acted dishonestly
B. Whether the defendant had oblique intention
C. Whether recklessness applies
D. Whether the offence is strict liability
B. Whether the defendant had oblique intention
Explanation: The Woollin direction helps juries decide if a defendant foresaw the consequence as a virtual certainty and appreciated that.
Which of the following is true about motive in criminal law?
A. Motive and intention are legally the same
B. Motive can never be used in court
C. Motive always negates criminal liability
D. Motive is different from intention, but can be used as evidence
D. Motive is different from intention, but can be used as evidence
Explanation: Motive is not the same as intention, but it may support or explain intention, as seen in R v Hill.
According to R v Matthews and Alleyne, what is foresight of virtual certainty?
A. Always conclusive proof of intention
B. Only relevant in negligence
C. Evidence from which intention may be inferred
D. A test for recklessness
C. Evidence from which intention may be inferred
Explanation: The court confirmed foresight of virtual certainty is not the definition of intention but strong evidence of it.
Jamie plants a bomb on a plane, intending to claim insurance. He knows the pilot will die. What best describes his mental state toward the pilot?
A. Direct intention
B. Recklessness
C. Negligence
D. Oblique Intention
D. Oblique intention
Explanation: Jamie’s purpose was financial gain, but he foresaw death as virtually certain — oblique intention.
Zahra punches someone in the face intending to cause serious harm. What mens rea is this?
A. Oblique intention
B. Negligence
C. Direct Intention
D. Dishonesty
C. Direct intention
Explanation: She acted with the aim of causing serious injury — the classic example of direct intention.
Liam throws a brick at a window, aiming to scare people. He foresees that someone behind it will almost certainly be injured. What might a jury infer?
A. Liam had oblique intention to injure
B. Liam had no intention to cause harm
C. Liam was merely negligent
D. Liam’s motive was unlawful, so that proves intention
A. Liam had oblique intention to injure
Explanation: If injury was a virtual certainty and Liam realised this, oblique intention may be inferred.
Priya breaks into a building to protest against government policy. She disables equipment to draw attention. What is her legal position?
A. Her good motive excuses the crime
B. She may still be found to have direct intention to damage property
C. Her protest means there was no criminal act
D. Oblique intention applies
B. She may still be found to have direct intention to damage property
Explanation: As in Chandler v DPP, motive is irrelevant if the defendant intends the prohibited act.
A defendant sets fire to a car to scare someone. The fire spreads and destroys nearby homes. What is the best approach to intention?
A. Consider whether the wider damage was a virtual certainty and appreciated
B. D’s motive to scare excuses the result
C. If D caused damage, it must be intention
D. There is no criminal liability if damage was unplanned
A. Consider whether the wider damage was a virtual certainty and appreciated
Explanation: For unintended outcomes, the Woollin test helps assess oblique intention.
Ellie gives someone a drink laced with sleeping pills so she can rob them. Is this an intention to injure?
A. No, it was not her aim
B. Yes, because it supports an intent to injure under R v Hill
C. Yes, because the injury was reckless
D. No, because there was no physical harm
B. Yes, because it supports an intent to injure under R v Hill
Explanation: Administering drugs to facilitate harm can show intention to injure, even if the primary aim is theft.
Daniel wants to destroy a company’s data. He sends a virus, knowing it will also crash hospital systems, likely endangering lives. What mental element applies?
A. He is reckless but not liable
B. He has direct intention to kill
C. He has oblique intention to cause harm
D. He lacks mens rea because his goal was sabotage
C. He has oblique intention to cause harm
Explanation: He foresaw serious harm as virtually certain and still acted — this meets the Woollin threshold.
Molly hits someone with a bat during a heated argument. She says she did not intend serious harm but admits she wanted to “teach them a lesson.” The jury must decide if:
A. Her motive justifies her actions
B. Her motive proves her guilt
C. She had oblique intention because she hoped to scare
D. She had direct intention if serious harm was her aim or purpose
D. She had direct intention if serious harm was her aim or purpose
Explanation: The test for direct intention is subjective: was that outcome what she aimed for?
