Intention Flashcards
What cases should be included in an intention essay?
CHANDLER, MOHAN MOLONEY HANCOCK AND SHANKLAND NEDRICK WOOLLIN
What is the standard introduction for an intention essay?
In many offences the mens rea required is that of an intention to cause a prohibited result. In murder, the mens rea is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Other crimes requiring intent include causing GBH with intent to do GBH and theft. Intention has not been defined by Parliament and its meaning must be worked out from case law. There are two forms of intent: direct intent and indirect intent. The legal meaning of intention is not entirely clear. In this essay I will start by… and then move on to discuss…
What is the precedent from CHANDLER?
Mens rea must not be confused with motive: CHANDLER.
What is direct intent?
A consequence is directly intended if it’s D’s main aim or purpose. D directly wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it: MOHAN (1976).
According to MOHAN, a consequence can also be directly intended even though not desired by D. If the undesired result is an inevitable result that D is prepared to bring about in order to achieve his ultimate aim, then he intends that undesired result.
What is oblique/indirect intent?
In a line of important cases, the courts have tried to specify the degree of foresight necessary in order to establish that an undesired consequence was indirectly intended. Rather than try and define indirect intention, the courts gave guidelines on it in MOLONEY.
What were the problems with the guidelines from MOLONEY?
The guidelines were ambiguous and overlooked the degree of probability of an undesired consequence arising.
What did the House of Lords decide in HANCOCK AND SHANKLAND?
The House of Lords pointed out that the probability of the result occurring was something for the jury to take into account in devising whether there was sufficient evidence from which intention could be inferred.
What was laid down in NEDRICK?
NEDRICK laid down a model direction for a trial judge to give a jury when indirect intention is an issue in a homicide trial. The Court of Appeal said that when considering indirect intent the jury should ask themselves two questions:
- how probable was the undesired consequence which resulted from D’s act; and
- did D foresee the consequence?
(NEDRICK guidelines)
What are the guidelines from NEDRICK?
The jury should be directed that they are entitled to infer that D indirectly intended and undesired result, if D foresaw that result as a virtual certainty. All the evidence must be considered by the jury, including the foresight of D.
What happened in WOOLLIN?
The test in NEDRICK of foresight of virtual certainty was confirmed by the HOL in the case of WOOLLIN. (Facts of WOOLLIN). The HOL said the model direction in NEDRICK was ‘pitched at the right level of foresight’ (virtual certainty). However, the Law Lords changed the direction slightly by changing the word ‘infer’ to ‘find’ as they felt this would get the point across to jurors more clearly in cases of foresight of undesired consequences. Also, the HOL disapproved of the two questions in NEDRICK.
What are the facts of WOOLLIN?
In this case D had killed his three-month-old son, by throwing him against a wall, fracturing his skull.
What are the facts from MOLONEY and what precedent came from it?
In this case, D shot and killed his stepfather in a drunken challenge to see who was quicker on the draw with a shotgun.
Merely foreseeing V’s death was not intention, but merely evidence from which intention could be inferred by the jury. When deciding intent, a subjective test must be used.
