The Law of Intention

The law of tendency, following the cases of Woollin 1999 1 AC 82 and Matthews 2003 3 Cr App R 30, is now satisfactorily defined in the savage law. Intention, ordinarily means desire to aim at something. However, in criminal law, mens rea known as guilty mine, it requires ii distinguishable uses which are direct role as well as abdominal external devious muscle intention, and apart from, withal recklessness. Direct intention means the consequences of the action is desired specifically, just like execution. Defendant is purposed to strive the death or the horrible bodily aggrieve (GBH) of the victim R v Mohan 1975.Oblique intention also known as foresight intent, means the consequence which the suspect is non desired, however, it is going to happen when he goes ahead with his acts (Law teacher, 2012). An unsurprising military position-effect would get out when suspect is achieving some other consequences R V Nedrick 1986. Under these situations, the appeal give remi nd the jury to consider how probable the consequence was foreseen by the defendant. Generally, recklessness means to obtain an unjustified risk. It covers the case of harm such as manslaughter or criminal damage.Objective and subjective test will be applied respectively in unalike cases. In other words, intention could be the scald 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 thrown him to a hard surface. The babys skull was fractured and exsanguinous 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 thither was a substantial risk, which the small fry could ingest from flagitious bodily harm.Substantial risk means the act of the defendant made a strong and momentous cause to the death of the victim. The judge directed the jury 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 widen the definition of murder and should have referred to realistic certainty instead of the jury must honor the intention (e-lawresources, n. d. ). The appeal was rejected. Virtual certainty is defined as the result will occur unless something completely unexpected occurs (Herring, 2012 p. 41). The House of Lord held that the jury is not entitled to infer the intention but only if the defendant determined and the death or the grievous bodily harm was a nearly certain result. Therefore, the appeal allowed in House of Lord and the faith of manslaughter substituted. Parliament state 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 oblique intention can be said to being satisfactorily defined in the criminal law.In the case of R v Matthews and Alleyne 2003, the victim was thrown 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 lost his glasses in the attack. However, the defendants disregard 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 belief. However, the Court of Appeal corroborate the conviction. In English law, there is no strict definition on intention is, also there is no direct link in the midst of the foresight of consequence and intention. Foresight of consequence must not be an intention. It is clear that jury was not entitled t o infer intention unless the death or the unsafe 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 virtually 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 oblique 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 car after stolen goods. However, he refused to do it and the police jumped onto the bonnet of the car. Defendant horde with high speed in order to get the police off. He swerving from side to side and unt il 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 squelched 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 explaining what intention is. Intention can be distinguish in two aspects, which are direct intention and obl ique intention. As mentioned before, both intentions are desire to aim at something. The main 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 general cases, the jury are not entitled to infer the intention of the defendants, however, apart 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 htt p//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