Extracts from this document...

Introduction

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.?[1] The law of intention has been one that has been at the centre of ?theoretical debate and judicial disagreement?[2] 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?[3] yet with little success. While many would argue that the Nedrick[4] and Woollin[5] guidelines has resolved the ?lingering tension between a law of virtual certainty and guidelines based on Hyam-style recklessness,?[6] 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[7], Re A (Children)[8] and R v Matthew and Alleyne[9] are clear evidence of this. ...read more.

Middle

However, as the law is subjective and the jury is not bound to find intention, but rather use the evidence to find intention, it can be found that the doctor was indeed lawful. He may have killed Mary in order to prolong Jodie?s life, but it was intended with good motive and the law ?permits such a action if it can be justified.?[26] If the operation to separate them had not happened, then both the twins would have died before their first birthday. This allows the courts to have the ?power to develop new defences?[27] with regard to medical liability ?so as to ensure that what they regard as important moral distinctions are marked appropriately.?[28] While the law may be indeed flexible and open to consideration, it must also not be too flexible. Many will argue that because there is a degree of flexibility then this provides no certainty within the law. It was said that by ?applying the Woollin judgment?it would result in many individuals avoiding convictions for murder.?[29] However, this is not the case, which is supported by the case of R v. Matthews and Alleyne and the example of a terrorist bomber. A terrorist aims to create a warning by blowing up a building with no intention to kill, and is not certain death will occur. Yet death did occur as a result, then can the terrorist be convicted of murder? If the virtual certainty test was applied it may and can be found that the defendant had no intention to kill and then can not be convicted of murder. ...read more.

Conclusion

Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009, 173 [11] [1975] AC 55 [12] [1985] AC 905 [13] Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.8 [14] [1961] AC 290 [15] [1979] QB 695 [16] [1985] AC 905 [17] Fafinksi, S. "Mens Rea: Intention, Recklessness, Negligence and Gross Negligence." Law Express: Criminal Law. By E. Finch. UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2008. 95 [18] Ibid [19] Ashworth, A, Principles of Criminal Law, OUP, New York, 2009, pp. 175 [20] Ibid [21] [1986] AC 112 [22] Ashworth, A, Principles of Criminal Law, OUP, New York, 2009, pp. 174 [23] Fafinksi, S. "Mens Rea: Intention, Recklessness, Negligence and Gross Negligence." Law Express: Criminal Law. By E. Finch. UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2008. 96 [24] [1957] Crim LR 365 [25] Ibid [26] Fafinksi, S. "Mens Rea: Intention, Recklessness, Negligence and Gross Negligence." Law Express: Criminal Law. By E. Finch. UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2008. 97 [27] Ashworth, A, Principles of Criminal Law, OUP, New York, 2009, pp. 177 [28] Ibid [29] Coffey, G, ?Codifying the meaning of ?Intention? in the Criminal Law,? The Journal of Criminal Law, 2009, 73, pp. 404 [30] Khan, A, ?Intention in Criminal Law: Time to change?? Statue Law Review, 23, 3, 2002, pp. 235 [31] Ibid [32] European Convention on Human Rights 1950 [33] Khan, A, ?Intention in Criminal Law: Time to change?? Statue Law Review, 23, 3, 2002, pp. 236 [34] Ibid., p. 237 [35] Khan, A, ?Intention in Criminal Law: Time to change?? Statue Law Review, 23, 3, 2002. 237 [36] Ashworth, A, Principles of Criminal Law, OUP, New York, 2009, pp. 171 [37] Ibid., p. 176 [38] Ashworth, A, Principles of Criminal Law, OUP, New York, 2009, pp. 177 ...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Criminal law section.