Intention & Recklessness

Question 1

What is direct and oblique intent?

Answer 1

Direct - the defendants aim, objective and purpose to cause a particular result

Oblique - it was their aim, objective or purpose, but the defendant did Gorses the result was likely to occur

Question 2

What cases developed the definition used for oblique intent?

Answer 2

Moloney 1985
Hancock & Shankland 1986
Nedrick 1986
Woollin 1999
Mathews and Alleyne 2003

Question 3

What is the accepted definition of oblique intent now?

Answer 3

R v Woollin 1999

The jury are not entitled to find intention unless they believe death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the accused actions, and that the accused appreciates this to be the case

Question 4

What are basic and specific intent offences?

Answer 4

Basic intent offences - offences which involve both intention and recklessness as an element
Specific intent offences - offences which only involve intention as an element of the offence

Question 5

What was said in DPP V Majewski 1977?

Answer 5

A drunken intent is still an intent

Question 6

How is the Mens rea of recklessness applied?

Answer 6

R v Cunningham 1957

a) the defendant took an unjustified risk; and
b) the defendant was aware of the existence of the unreasonable risk

R v Caldwell 1982 ruled that all cases involving recklessness should use Cunningham recklessness

Question 7

What is transferred malice?

Answer 7

This is where the defendant didn’t intend to carry out his offence on the eventual victim, the intention is still there to commit the offence

R v Mitchell 1983 post office queue case