Mens Rea: Oblique Intention Quiz

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to Lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson
Download our mobile app to listen on the go
Get App

Questions and Answers

What characterizes direct intention in the context of law?

  • The defendant realizes potential consequences but acts anyway.
  • The defendant acts to achieve a specific result. (correct)
  • The defendant aims to frighten the victim without intending harm.
  • The defendant is indifferent to the outcome of their actions.

Which case is associated with the concept of indirect or oblique intention?

  • Hancock & Shankland (1986)
  • Mohan (1975)
  • Hyam -v- DPP (1975) (correct)
  • Nedrick (1986)

What does the case of Maloney (1985) teach regarding foresight of consequences?

  • It establishes that foresight alone cannot constitute intention. (correct)
  • It demonstrates that intent can be inferred from circumstances.
  • It confirms that foresight is direct intention.
  • It emphasizes that intention must always involve deliberation.

What distinguishes oblique intention from negligence?

<p>Oblique intention encompasses no desire for harmful consequences. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Hancock & Shankland (1986), what principle was highlighted regarding foresight?

<p>Foresight must indicate probability of outcome. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Which aspect of mens rea is considered the highest?

<p>Intention (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of the defendant's actions in the case of Nedrick (1986)?

<p>A child died in a fire. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is the difference between intention and motive in legal terms?

<p>Intention refers to the intended outcome, whereas motive is the reason behind the action. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Flashcards

Intention

Intention refers to the accused's deliberate aim to bring about the prohibited consequence, regardless of whether they desired that outcome.

Direct Intention

The defendant deliberately wants a certain outcome and performs an action to achieve it.

Indirect/Oblique Intention

The defendant doesn't want the outcome that occurs but realizes it's a possible consequence of their actions.

Foresight of Consequences (Oblique Intention)

The defendant knew that their actions could cause serious harm or death, even though they didn't want the specific outcome.

Signup and view all the flashcards

R v Maloney (1985)

This case established that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention. It is only evidence of intention, not intention itself.

Signup and view all the flashcards

R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)

This case clarified the guidelines set by Maloney. The court emphasized the need for a high probability that the harmful consequence was a result of the defendant's actions.

Signup and view all the flashcards

R v Nedrick (1986)

This case further refined the criteria for indirect intention. The court suggested that a virtual certainty test be used to determine intention.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Virtual Certainty Test

Oblique intention arises when the defendant foresaw a particular harmful consequence as a virtual certainty of their act.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Study Notes

Mens Rea: Oblique Intention

  • Oblique intention is a type of intention where the defendant doesn't desire the result, but recognizes it as a likely outcome of their actions.
  • It's a form of mens rea, the mental element of a crime.
  • The key difference between oblique and direct intention is that in direct intention, the defendant wants the specific result to occur, whereas in oblique intention, the resultant consequence is a foreseeable outcome.

Cases Illustrating Oblique Intention

  • Mohan (1975):

    • Intention is defined as bringing about a consequence within the accused's power, regardless of their desire for that consequence.
    • Motive is distinct from intention, explaining why the act was committed.

  • Hyam v DPP (1975):

    • Indirect intention involves the defendant not wanting the specific consequence, but realizing it's a likely result of their actions.
    • This case established the concept of a consequence being virtually certain, highlighting the foresight element.

  • Maloney (1985):

    • Foresight of a consequence is evidence of intention, though not sufficient in itself to prove intention.
    • The case outlined that the jury should consider (1) whether the death or serious injury was a natural consequence of the defendant's act, and (2) whether the defendant foresaw that consequence as a natural consequence of their act

  • Hancock & Shankland (1986):

    • A crucial case illustrating foresight in indirect intention.
    • It emphasized that the consequence must be more than just reasonably foreseeable, but virtually certain.
    • Lord Scarman argued that the Maloney guidelines were unsafe and misleading. Probability was not properly addressed.

  • Nedrick (1986):

    • The judge outlined a more specific framework focusing on "virtual certainty."
    • It provides a model for the jury's decision-making, clarifying how evidence of foresight relates to proof of intention.

  • Woolin (1998):

    • The court emphasized the need for "virtual certainty" in finding intention.
    • It highlighted how the jury must consider the probable consequences of the defendant's action.

  • Matthew & Alleyne (2003):

    • The jury needs to determine if death or serious injury was virtually certain.
    • This emphasizes a clear link between actions, foresight, and the necessary intention for an oblique intention conviction.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Quiz Team

Related Documents

Mens Rea Revision 1 Intention PDF

More Like This

Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Open
Browser
Browser