After Woollin, the law of Intention remains unclear, but nonetheless works in a satisfactory manner. Discuss

Authors Avatar by cowley1992 (student)

After Woollin, the law of Intention remains unclear, but nonetheless works in a satisfactory manner.

Discuss

With regard to the law of intention it was hoped ‘Woollin would have seen an end to the misunderstanding of the criminal laws concept of intention.’ The law of intention has been one that has been at the centre of ‘theoretical debate and judicial disagreement’ for many decades and is still one that is not completely understood, even though many have tried to define it. There are two types of intention, direct and oblique. While direct intention has proven much easier to define, oblique intention continues to create confusion within the courts and this has caused several questions to arise, particularly questions regarding good motives and morality. ‘The courts and even Parliament have attempted to define the concept of oblique intention’ yet with little success. While many would argue that the Nedrick and Woollin guidelines has resolved the ‘lingering tension between a law of virtual certainty and guidelines based on Hyam-style recklessness,’ some would disagree and claim that Woollin has not actually had much affect on the law of intention, but simply changed the wording and failed to give the law a true definition of intention. Some may even go as far as arguing that there is still uncertainty within the law. However, while the definition may still be unclear, one thing that can be agreed on is that the law works in a satisfactory manner and cases such as R v Steane, Re A (Children) and R v Matthew and Alleyne are clear evidence of this. While the definition is unclear and problematic the way in which it works is not.

The true definition of intention has been at the centre of debate for decades. ‘At present there is no legislative definition of intention,’so it can be a problem finding what someone really intended. Oblique intention is much less common than direct intention and relies on trying to find what the defendant intended based on the test of virtual certainty. The exact meaning of oblique intention has proven to be an issue for the courts, and even after the changes made in Woollin, it still seems to be just as unclear. The definition of intention has changed several times throughout the decades and while it has settled on the model provided by Nedrick and amended by Woollin it still seems to be unclear. While many cases prior to Woollin and Nedrick, such as Hyam v DPP and Moloney had attempted create models in which future cases could follow they have been apprehensive in defining the term. The models they had set had been unclear, and created even more confusion with regard to the distinction of intention and recklessness and intention and causation.

However, one thing that is clear and certain is that intention is a subjective concept and this has been confirmed by that of the section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, after the case of DPP v. Smith, where it was clear that a objective approach resulted in a unfair conviction, as it was presumed the defendant was a reasonable man. By using a subjective approach intention can be found based on what that particular person thought would be the consequence of their actions, rather than preparing them to that of a reasonable person. This provides fairness in the law, and can be said to comply with a persons human rights. For example, a schizophrenia patient would have a completely different state of mind to that of a medically sound person and therefore would and should be given a different conviction, which the subjective approach allows. This was the situation in the case of R v Stephenson. Even though, this case deals with the idea of recklessness, it provides an insight into how the jury can use the subjective approach to find what the defendant really intended, based on their individual characteristics. As the defendant suffered from schizophrenia, it cannot be certain that he would have foreseen the consequences of his actions due to his illness and if an objective approach and the test of virtual certainty had be applied then it would have led to a unfair conviction.

Join now!

Motive is very often confused with intention. As Lord Bridge said in Moloney, ‘intention is something quite distinct from motive or desire.’ A person may intend to carry out a crime, yet may have a good motive for it, however the defendant cannot be morally excused when they intended to cause harm. The law is not interested as to why a person committed the act, but rather if you had the actus reas to commit the crime. There are cases that ‘confined the definition of intention to motive whilst others have held, that intention should ignore motive and correspondence to aim ...

This is a preview of the whole essay