Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Direct intent: a person has direct intent when they intend a particular consequence of their act. Oblique intent: the person has oblique intent when the event is a natural consequence of a voluntary act and they foresee it as such. The 'natural consequence' definition was replaced [where?] in R v Woollin [6] with the 'virtually certain' test.
Judges normally do not define intention for juries, and the weight of authority is to give it its current meaning in everyday language as directed by the House of Lords in R v Moloney, [1] where can be found references to a number of definitions of intention using subjective and objective tests, and knowledge of consequences of actions or omissions.
Oblique intention: the result is a virtually certain consequence or a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case. Knowingly : the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur.
R v Nedrick [1986] EWCA Crim 2 is an English criminal law case dealing with mens rea in murder. The case is a cornerstone as it sets down the "virtual certainty test". It applies wherever a form of indirect (oblique) intention is apparent and the charge is one of murder, or other very specific intent.
In support a legal academic has published that applying too rigid a definition of intent/intention would remove "moral elbow-room" from the jury. [ 1 ] Much opprobrium is expressed that R v Steane on its face extends the traditional definition of criminal liability by adding a criterion of true or moral purpose to offences for which a specific ...
Intention or intent is a key aspect in criminal law. It refers to the state of mind of the perpetrator, specifically to their plan to commit a crime. [88] As such, it belongs to the mental element of the crime, known as mens rea, and not to the physical element, actus reus.
The mens rea of all offences in the Act is direct or oblique intention, or subjective recklessness as defined by the House of Lords in R v G (2003). [31] Bingham L.J. stated that a person acts "recklessly" with respect to (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; or
In form (3), intent can be simply decided in the case of a direct attack, or "virtual certainty", with knowledge of the virtual certainty – the Woollin [c 23] principle. [ 51 ] [ 52 ] In form (1), where an injury does not amount to grievous bodily harm, intent to cause grievous bodily harm (in the advancement of a different cause) must be shown.