• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Intention is the mens rea phrase, which expresses the highest level of blameworthiness of an offender.

Extracts from this document...


(1518 words.) Intention is the mens rea phrase, which expresses the highest level of blameworthiness of an offender. If a person aims to cause a result, he is more responsible than a person who acts recklessly. It is significant to identify the margin between intention and recklessness not only to decide the degree of guilt of the offender for sentencing reasons, but also to establish in many cases whether the offender is accountable to conviction where the offence charged is one, which necessitate intention to be verified. Two concepts, intention and recklessness, hold the key to the understanding of a large part of criminal law. Some crimes need intention and nothing else will do, but most can be committed either intentionally or recklessly. Some crimes require particular kinds of intention or knowledge. Kenny's view was also that: no external behaviour, though grave or even serious its consequences may have been, is ever penalizing unless it is formed by some form of mens rea. It may be useful to identify one of the principles for which the phrase mens rea is used. It is an expositional tool, when used in sentences such as 'the mens rea of X offence is Y', where Y might be intention, recklessness, malice, dishonesty, an intent to defraud or deceive. (A.T.H. Smith) Williams considers intention and recklessness as basic mens rea in that a defendant's responsibility should be dependent on his knowledge of the significant conditions surrounding, and consequences of, his behaviour. ...read more.


He argued that in popular speech there is no distinction between the person who recognises a risk and goes on nevertheless and the person who never addresses his mind to the obvious risk at all. The law, said Lord Diplock, should not perpetuate 'fine and impracticable distinctions'. Reckless is a word in normal speech and means not only taking predictable and pointless risks but also the failure to see such risks: There must be an obvious risk, depending on the circumstances in which the defendant acted. This is a risk, which would be obvious to the reasonable person R. v. Sangha (1988) 1 W.L.R. 519. Once the obvious risk is proved, it matters not whether the accused realised that there was a risk and decided to take it or whether he never realised that there was a risk at all either way the defendant is accountable. Baroness Wootton agrees on this point (along with may other points made by Lord Diplock) by saying "If the law says that certain things are not to be done, it is illogical to confine this prohibition to occasions on which they are done from malice aforethought: for at least the material consequences of an action, and the reason for prohibiting it, are the same whether it is the result of sinister malicious plotting, of negligence or of sheer accident". There is a powerful disagreement from Edmund-Davies and Wilberforce. ...read more.


On the query of moral evaluation, two contrasting positions have been urged, and they have been phrased the subjectivist and the objectivist. The consequences are not important for moral blame. By way of contrast, the objective view treats the consequences flowing from conduct as part of the act itself, and considers any division between act and consequences as unpersuasive. For the objectivist, the consequences must be taken into account when considering moral liability. (A. Ashworth) Yet Baroness Wootton stated "mens rea has got into the wrong place. Traditionally, the requirement of the guilty mind is written into the actual definition of a crime. No guilty intention, no crime, is the rule. In conclusion, to the above discussions, it would be obviously insufficient for a legal system to have a solitary offence stating that anybody who performs in a way that is opposing to the good of society may be liable to conviction and sentence of up to life imprisonment. Its communicative purpose would be unbearably vestigial, its censuring purpose would be terribly unclear, and the discretion left at the sentencing phase would bestow vast power on the courts on what would then be the key issue. This proposes that a rule of reasonable classification should develop part of a system of criminal law, so as to guarantee that each crime is distinct and considered in a way which expresses the relative seriousness of the offence, and which limits the court's sentencing abilities suitably. - 1 - ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    is the case of Smolden v Nolan v Whitworth [1997] ELR 249 where a referee failed to establish control over a dangerous aspect. The plaintiff was awarded 1.8 million pounds in damages, and received 1 million pounds. Also in the case of Vowles v Evans and Welsh Rugby Union ltd

  2. Marked by a teacher

    "The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and ...

    4 star(s)

    Lord Styen acknowledged the much-cited 'terrorist example'6 did not falling within the Woollin law of indirect intention. A terrorist who plants a bomb, which subsequently detonates and kills a member of the bomb disposal team, would not be guilty of murder under the Nedrick/Woollin direction on indirect intention.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    Basic intent crimes is where the mens rea does not go beyond the actus reus, they both correspond. But for these types of crime a defendant will be given a lesser sentence even though he intended the consequences. The outcome to the case of Kingston could be considered unfair as

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    It was held that, although she was reckless, she did not intend to kill. In Moloney [1985], the House held that an intent to cause serious bodily harm is sufficient mens rea for murder,[5] while Lord Bridge appeared to suggest that the law should regard "morally certain" consequences as intended.

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    The defendant was charged under s.23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which involves maliciously administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life. The trial judge directed the jury that malice was the equivalent to wicked and the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction - maliciously means intentionally or

  2. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    According to above, for this case, we can see that, the service breach the duty, and the damage is the guys die. They need to responsible for it. Claim 2- Santa Rosa Institution Joseph Wong, an assistant manager of Santa Rosa Institution, was killed in a car accident on his way home from the campus.

  1. Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which ...

    The actus reus of battery is the application of unlawful force on another. The mens rea of battery is the application of unlawful force or subjective recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied to another. Examples of battery include punching, slapping, kicking pushing, hitting someone with a stick, stone

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Although the wiring fault caused a fire unexpectedly but because of having strict liability, Bright Light PLC must be liable for the damage under the Rule in (Rylands vs. Fletches 1868) In case of Chemi-Kaze PLC, it is liable for the ground floor where it doing business, especially when it

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work