• 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...

Introduction

(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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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

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

    4 star(s)

    Following the Nedrick/Woollin direction on intent, he would still be convicted of murder because the defendant realised that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty of his actions. In cases of conjoined twins, the courts have followed the line of Nedrick/Woollin in that an operation cannot go ahead

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    Despite serious injuries, the player decided against any civil or criminal proceedings and it is now up to the FA to decide a suitable punishment for the offending player and/or club. Similar to the Condon v Basi case is a game recently when Liverpool played Blackburn Rovers where a player

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    by something said or done (R v. Doughty) which made the D suffer a sudden and temporary loss of self-control and a reasonable person would have done the same thing. There have been many problems concerning the words "sudden and temporary" loss of self-control.

  2. Recklessness & Intention - Critically assess the meaning of the term 'reckless' in criminal ...

    This was overruled in the next case. Hancock and Shankland 1986 (the defendants dropped two large concrete blocks from a bridge onto a road below in order to scare a fellow worker from going to work in a taxi and breaking the strike, they intended to stop the taxi but did not desire or intend the death of the driver).

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

    In this sense, in Cunliffe v Goodman [1950], Lord Asquith stated that the 'core' sense of intention "connotes a state of affairs which the party 'intending' ... does more than merely contemplate: it connotes a state of affairs which, on the contrary, he decides, so far as in him lies, to bring about".

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

    involved in an accident causing by their making of an illegal U-turn. Two, including Adam Hu who had purchased the drink, were killed. The drivers blood alcohol level was above the legal limit. The parents of the boys sued the Finest Wine Ltd, citing the statute prohibiting sale of alcohol to persons under the legal age.

  1. Separation of Power

    Since 1966, the Practice Statement has allowed the House of Lords (HoL) to change the law if they believe that earlier case was wrongly decided to avoid injustice. They have done almost 30 occasions including the first use in a criminal case (Shivipuri (1986)

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

    The law of torts will hold manufacturers strictly liable for any injuries that result from placing unreasonably dangerous products into the stream of commerce, without regard to the amount of care exercised in preparing the product for sale and distribution and without regard to whether the consumer purchased the product from, or entered into a contractual relationship with, the manufacturer.

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