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

Explain and evaluate the meaning of intention.

Extracts from this document...


"Numerous offences are defined so as to require proof of 'intention' ... It might be expected that the meaning of such a fundamental term would have been settled long ago but this is not so. The cases are inconsistent, judicial opinion has recently changed and there is still some measure of uncertainty." (Ormerod, D Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law, 2005, p.93) With particular reference to recent authority and academic critiques, explain and evaluate the meaning of intention in the light of this statement. Intention is one of the main forms of mens rea, the absolute meaning of this term, however, is unsettled and the legal modifications and definitions regarding this term have undergone much academic scrutiny over the years. There are several forms of intention, the main two being direct intent, and oblique (or indirect) intent. There is also specific intent, basic intent and ulterior intent. It is thoroughly established that direct intent is defined as when it is a persons aim to bring about a certain consequence. With many crimes it is not necessary to prove that the actus reus was intended, however some crimes do require an intention, for example murder requires intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm; recklessness is not adequate. This is why it can be vital to find out whether there was intention. In the case of R v Moloney [1985]1, Lord Bridge of Harwich claimed that when dealing with intention rather than confusing the jury with the legal ...read more.


N claimed that he had not intended for anyone to die. His murder conviction was substituted for manslaughter on the grounds that the Judge had misdirected the jury on the intent necessary to establish a charge of murder, due to the way in which he had equated foresight with murder. This set forth the Nedrick test, which stated that "the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (baring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the actions of the accused and that he appreciated that was the case". Buxton stated that "Nedrick has laid the practical problems to rest"10, and he was agreed with by other academics who also welcomed the Nedrick test11. Not everyone, however, agreed with Buxton's claim. The crown argued that Nedrick prevents the jury from considering all the evidence relevant to intention within the case, and that this is contrary to the requirements of section 8 of the Act of 196712 which stated that a court or jury must decide whether there was intention "by reference to all the evidence". This was countered, however, by Lord Lane C.J. who stated that "Nedrick does not prevent a jury from considering all the evidence". He argued that the Nedrick test only explains to the court the state of mind necessary to satisfy murder. ...read more.


Like oblique, there has also been confusion over the meaning of ulterior intent. In the case of R v Dakou [2002]17 the defendant was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. D appealed against his conviction contending that the trial Judge had failed to adequately direct the jury in relation to ulterior intent. He claimed this was because the Judge used "unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences" and had referred to both recklessness and malice which were both irrelevant. The appeal was allowed quashing the conviction. This demonstrates that even in fairly recent case law there has been uncertainty over ulterior intent, similarly to the uncertainty that still clouds oblique intent. Specific intent and basic intent, whilst both coming under the same general term of intention, have very different definitions. Specific intent is when only intention will suffice for a crime, whereas basic intent means that recklessness or negligence will suffice to establish the mens rea of a crime. These are both 'intention' yet are almost opposites which completely broadens the scope of intent and may cause confusion. Overall, as Ormerod claims, it does appear that the meaning of intention is still unsettled. The various types of intent that come under the general term of "intention" mean quite different things. Some types of intent, especially oblique, still have much ambiguity surrounding them. The case law has begun to accumulate some consistency by applying the Nedrick direction, but not enough consistency to settle the long running saga or to prevent academic writers from critiquing the laws and judgements made surrounding the area. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

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

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "There is no statutory definition of intention in English law. Indeed, over the past ...

    5 star(s)

    Conversely, oblique intention is said to be when the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence will also bring about another result.10 For example if D plans to rob a bank, to open the safe he will have to use explosives.

  2. R v Nedrick and R v Woollin: intention in murder.

    However, to gain the full extent of the history and arguments behind the current decisions, it is necessary to give a brief examination of the prior judicial decisions. In Hyam v. Director of Public Prosecutions3, a woman deliberately set fire to her rival in love's house without warning.

  1. Law of Rape

    being reckless whether she consents and that the offence continues until he withdraws. That is, r**e is not an instantaneous act but penetration without consent is an essential part of it. It was also commented that penetration is an essential part of the actus reus of r**e and that this must be accompanied by mens rea.

  2. Discussing Homicide - constructive manslaughter.

    Thus, understandably, drunkenness and excitability, or ill temper were not relevant characteristics. But as we moved on, and particularly since words alone can constitute provocation, some characteristics of the accused had to be relevant. For example, to taunt a person because of his race, his physical infirmities or some shameful

  1. In this essay it is my intention to evaluate by means of a critical ...

    relates to intention. This makes intention a very important and hotly debated subject. Malice aforethought is not a term widely used in the courts these days but essentially it is the intention to cause death or serious injury, either in a direct or oblique form.

  2. Criminal Law - Defining Intention

    and intention are two different things.[17] In R v Inglis[18], although the defendant has good motives to kill his lover to relieve pain and suffering, it doesn?t mean he doesn?t have intention to do it because motive is irrelevant. However, in some rare cases, motive will be considered as reliance of the cases.

  1. The decision in DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC Crim (Admin) has resulted in the ...

    physical pain consequent on an assault is not a necessary ingredient of this offence.'[6] The ruling in T v DPP (2003) that temporary unconsciousness can amount to ABH was upheld by the Queen's Bench Division.[7] Judge P.'s ruling in Smith that the removal of a substantial amount of hair from an unconsenting person is a logical extension of this progression.

  2. Mens Rea. The different types of mens rea are those of intention, recklessness, ...

    Judges often try to avoid defining ?intention? as a term and do not direct juries to understand it differently from its ?normal meaning?. This is often referred to as the golden rule: that further direction to a jury is unnecessary except in cases where the sole evidence of the defendant's

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