"Foresight of consequences is not the same as intent."

Authors Avatar

Dhruv Koria

“Foresight of consequences is not the same as intent.”

For this essay I have been asked to explain and discuss using case law, the statement that foresight of consequences is not the same as intent.

I feel firstly I must explain both terms using a Cambridge dictionary:

The definition of Intention is a desire or purpose. The exact meaning of this has been open to considerable discussion and has been the subject of Law Commission recommendations for change. The definition of the Foresight of a consequence is basically to foresee the consequences of ones actions before they occur. This has also been open to considerable discussion.

There are several ways a person can kill. Firstly, with the Purpose of killing the victim, secondly not wishing the death of the victim, but knowing death is a certainty of their actions, thirdly not wishing the death of the victim but knowing there is a substantial risk that death may be the result of his or her actions and finally whilst not wishing the death of the victim, believing that it is probable or maybe possible that death will result.

While the first clearly involves intention and the last does not amount to intention, there is a problem in relation to the other two which involve differing degree of advertent risk-taking or foresight. This was highlighted in Hyam (1975) where the accused was jealous of her lover's new mistress. She wished to frighten her into leaving the area and poured petrol through the letterbox, followed by newspaper and a then lighting the lot on fire using a match. The mistress escaped but her two children died in the fire.  Now, although she had no intentions with regarding the children, the doctrine of transferred malice applies. The accused did not wish the victims to die but she had foreseen the risk of harm. She had checked out that the man involved was in his own home that night. The House of Lords were faced with two questions:

Join now!

  1. Is foresight of virtually certain situations equivalent to intention?

OR

  1. Is foresight of a virtual certainty of harm occurring an alternative form of malice aforethought?

In a trial, an affirmative answer to either question would be sufficient to uphold the conviction. But the difference between the two is of crucial importance when applied to offences which can only be committed intentionally. If the House were only laying down a rule for murder, then it has no relevance to other offences such as attempted crime or GBH. But if they were defining intention for the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay