Podcast
Questions and Answers
What characterizes direct intention in the context of law?
What characterizes direct intention in the context of law?
Which case is associated with the concept of indirect or oblique intention?
Which case is associated with the concept of indirect or oblique intention?
What does the case of Maloney (1985) teach regarding foresight of consequences?
What does the case of Maloney (1985) teach regarding foresight of consequences?
What distinguishes oblique intention from negligence?
What distinguishes oblique intention from negligence?
Signup and view all the answers
In the case of Hancock & Shankland (1986), what principle was highlighted regarding foresight?
In the case of Hancock & Shankland (1986), what principle was highlighted regarding foresight?
Signup and view all the answers
Which aspect of mens rea is considered the highest?
Which aspect of mens rea is considered the highest?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the outcome of the defendant's actions in the case of Nedrick (1986)?
What was the outcome of the defendant's actions in the case of Nedrick (1986)?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the difference between intention and motive in legal terms?
What is the difference between intention and motive in legal terms?
Signup and view all the answers
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.
Related Documents
Description
Test your understanding of oblique intention as a form of mens rea in criminal law. This quiz will cover key concepts, significant cases like Mohan and Hyam v DPP, and the differences between direct and oblique intention. Prepare to explore the nuances of intention in legal contexts.
