The Law of Intention

The jurisprudence of feelion, following the flakes of Woollin 1999 1 AC 82 and Matthews 2003 3 Cr App R 30, is now satisf moorily define in the cruel law. Intention, normally bureau desire to aim at aboutthing. However, in culpable law, mens rea know as guilty mine, it requires two distinguishable aims which ar direct intention as well as catty-cornered intention, and aside from, overly recklessness. Direct intention means the present moments of the action is desired specifically, ripe like get rid of. Defendant is purposed to achieve the oddment or the grievous visible harm (GBH) of the victim R v Mohan 1975.Oblique intention also known as foresight intent, means the consequence which the defendant is non desired, however, it is qualifying to happen when he goes ahead with his acts (Law teacher, 2012). An unsurprising side-effect would outcome when defendant is achieving some other consequences R V Nedrick 1986. Under these situations, the court will instiga te the instrument panel to consider how probable the consequence was precluden by the defendant. Generally, recklessness means to take an unjustified risk. It covers the circumstance of harm such as manslaughter or roughshod damage.Objective and infixed political campaign will be applied singly in different cases. In other words, intention could be the finish up culpability in mens rea. Follow up would be the recklessness. In the case of R v Woollin 1999, the defendant loose temper with his three-month-old son, and picked the baby up and impel him to a hard surface. The babys skull was fractured and dead afterwards. The defendant was convicted for murder, however, the court quashed and convicted of manslaughter substituted. In this case, the court of appeal upheld that there was a red-blooded risk, which the child could suffer from dependable corporeal harm.Substantial risk means the act of the defendant made a strong and signifi female genitalst cause to the death of the victim. The referee directed the control board that the consequence of the act is foreseeable by throwing the child to a hard surface. However, the defendant appealed that the court of appeal had utter the definition of murder and should have referred to virtual certainty instead of the jury must find the intention (e-lawresources, n. d. ). The appeal was rejected. Virtual certainty is outlined as the subject will occur unless something completely unexpected occurs (Herring, 2012 p. 41). The sign of Lord held that the jury is non authorised to infer the intention alone only if the defendant realized and the death or the grievous sensible harm was a more or less certain result. Therefore, the appeal allowed in sept of Lord and the conviction of manslaughter substituted. Parliament verbalise clearly that when defendant could foresee the death would be the result of the act did not represent that the defendant intended for murder R v Moloney 1985. By following this case, the cater-cornered intention fundament be said to being satisfactorily defined in the criminal law.In the case of R v Matthews and Alleyne 2003, the victim was impel to the river after robbing by the defendants. Before being thrown into the river, the victim had stated that he was not able to swim as he addled his glasses in the attack. However, the defendants ignored what the victims said and thrown him to river and watching him drown. Two of them are convicted of murder. As similar as the Woollin case, the judge had directed the jury that to consider whether the consequence of act was foreseeable in order to find out the intention to kill.The court upheld that finding of intent would be irresistible (Herring, 2012 p. 141). Defendants appealed against their conviction. However, the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. In side of meat law, there is no strict definition on intention is, also there is no direct link between the foresight of consequence and intention. Foresigh t of consequence must not be an intention. It is clear that jury was not entitled to infer intention unless the death or the serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty.Obviously, in the above case, the result which may not be the defendants aim at, that is the death of the victim, may not be the defendants final willingness. The result may not be the almost certain result of their actions. Moreover, the defendants even did not realize that the result was not a virtually certain result of their actions, and therefore, they did not intent the result. That is, this case would be another example to explain external oblique muscle intention can be said to being satisfactorily defined in the criminal law.Apart from those examples of oblique intention, the law of intention has also satisfactorily defined in the case of DPP v Smith 1960. The defendant was asked to drop off from the railcar after stolen goods. However, he refused to do it and the police jumped onto the bon fire of the ca r. Defendant herd with high speed in order to get the police off. He swerving from side to side and until the police was thrown and killed. Defendant was convicted of murder (e-lawresources, n. d. ). The court held it was clear that he had intent to cause serious bodily harm or even intent to kill.The judge directed the jury that if they are satisfied that GBH or the death of the victim would be the result in the consequence of his act. Therefore, the jury convicted him of murder. The defendant appealed against the conviction with the reason that subjective test should apply. However, the House of Lord affirmed the conviction and held that the objective test was applicable. Generally, if the result of defendants act is virtually certain which can cause grievous bodily harm or death, the jury is entitle to find that he intended the result.The verdict would be guilty of murder or manslaughter, depends on different circumstances. In English Law, there is no strict definition in explai ning what intention is. Intention can be distinguish in two aspects, which are direct intention and oblique intention. As mentioned before, both intentions are desire to aim at something. The important difference between them could be unsurprising side-effect would result in the oblique intention. Depends on different circumstance, the judge would convict different level of penalty.In world(a) cases, the jury are not entitled to infer the intention of the defendants, however, by from two situations, firstly, the result was a virtually certain result of the defendants acts, secondly, the defendant must realize that the result was a virtually certain result of the his act. Otherwise, the jury is not entitled to infer the intention of the defendant. Therefore, the case of R v Woollin and R v Matthews and Alleyne 2003 had clearly explained the law of intention in the criminal law. Table of casesDPP v Smith 1960 R v Matthews and Alleyne 2003 R v Mohan 1975 R v Moloney R V Nedrick 1986 . R v Woollin 1999 Reference Law teacher. (2012). Mens Rea Lecture-Intention. Retrieved 4 Nov, 2012, from http//www. lawteacher. net/criminal-law/lecture-notes/mens-rea-lecture. php E Lawresources. (n. d. ). R v Woollin. Retrieved 4 Nov, 2012, from http//e-lawresources. co. uk/R-v-Woollin. php E Lawresources. (n. d. ). R v Matthews and Alleyne. Retrieved 4 Nov, 2012, from http//www. e-lawresources. co. uk/DPP-v-Smith. php