Explain the difference between direct intent, oblique intent and subjective recklessness in English criminal law. Illustrate your explanation with cases.

Authors Avatar
Tiffany Curtis (08236445)  Explain the difference between direct intent, oblique intent and subjective recklessness in English criminal law. Illustrate your explanation with cases. The term mens rea in criminal law is used to describe the defendant’s mental state for a criminal offence. Mens rea in criminal law says that the physical element alone is not enough to amount to criminal liability. The presence of some mental element is usually required. This is called mens rea. This allows courts to inflict punishments on those who acted without at least some awareness of what they were doing. In this essay I will look at the different types of mens rea under English criminal law specifically by paying particular attention to direct intent, oblique intent and subjective recklessness. I will illustrate my understanding of the different types of mens rea by using relevant cases. Intention in criminal law is regarded as the worst type of mens rea, recklessness the next worst and negligence the least. In criminal law intention is said to be the guiltiest state of mind. Intention reflects not
Join now!
just a choice to act in a way which will bring a result, but a whole hearted decision to act in order to bring a result about.[1] In criminal law there are two types of intention. Direct intent refers to someone’s aim or desire. It is generally accepted that the Defendant intends a consequence of his actions if he realises it is foreseeable to happen, regardless of the fact if the Defendant desires it or not. Illustration of this is in the case Calhaem (1985) where the defendant wanted a women killed, and hired a hit man and paid down ...

This is a preview of the whole essay