Criminal Law : Intention
Answers * Assess the modern approaches to the definition of 'intention' in English criminal Law
-look at hierarchy of fault elements, intention v recklessness, foresight and intention
1) For some offences prosecution must prove BRD that the accused intended a particular consequence. ie murder, intention to kill/GBH , recklessness will not suffice
2) also in OAPA 1861, s18 intention alone suffices , intent to wound/GBH
3) there is no stat definition of intention. Its meaning is found in judicial decisions. Lack of consistency in the approach to the issue
4) Why is intention important? it is the highest level of blameworthiness. the fault elements common in defintion of offences are intention and recklessness. they reflect different degrees of blameworthiness ie intention to kill/gbh for murder-life sentence but recklessness is manslaughter and this carries discretion by judges in sentencing upto a life sentence, ( OAPA 1861 s 5)
5) the concepts of recklessness and intention are distinct and have a hierarchical relationship. so the boundary of intention and recklessness ( the taking of an unjustified risk) should be clearly drawn to reflect teh correct blameworthiness.
6) jury decides on the question of intention and so the direction to them should be clear .
The Meaning of intention
_ the core meaning of intention is 'aim, purpose or objective'. A P intends a consequence if he acts to bring it about. This approach was adopted in Moloney by James LJ, he defined intention as a decision to bring about a particular consequence irrespective of whether D desires it or not. Prior to Moloney in Hyam stated if a result is seen as highly probable it can be equated to intention but in Moloney this was rejected and stated that it is a part of the law of evidence and the substantive law.
-ie bomb example - insurance, practically certain Vs will die. does D have intention to kill or is he merely reckless with respect to killing the passengers?
in
-look at hierarchy of fault elements, intention v recklessness, foresight and intention
1) For some offences prosecution must prove BRD that the accused intended a particular consequence. ie murder, intention to kill/GBH , recklessness will not suffice
2) also in OAPA 1861, s18 intention alone suffices , intent to wound/GBH
3) there is no stat definition of intention. Its meaning is found in judicial decisions. Lack of consistency in the approach to the issue
4) Why is intention important? it is the highest level of blameworthiness. the fault elements common in defintion of offences are intention and recklessness. they reflect different degrees of blameworthiness ie intention to kill/gbh for murder-life sentence but recklessness is manslaughter and this carries discretion by judges in sentencing upto a life sentence, ( OAPA 1861 s 5)
5) the concepts of recklessness and intention are distinct and have a hierarchical relationship. so the boundary of intention and recklessness ( the taking of an unjustified risk) should be clearly drawn to reflect teh correct blameworthiness.
6) jury decides on the question of intention and so the direction to them should be clear .
The Meaning of intention
_ the core meaning of intention is 'aim, purpose or objective'. A P intends a consequence if he acts to bring it about. This approach was adopted in Moloney by James LJ, he defined intention as a decision to bring about a particular consequence irrespective of whether D desires it or not. Prior to Moloney in Hyam stated if a result is seen as highly probable it can be equated to intention but in Moloney this was rejected and stated that it is a part of the law of evidence and the substantive law.
-ie bomb example - insurance, practically certain Vs will die. does D have intention to kill or is he merely reckless with respect to killing the passengers?
in