Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The crime of battery, for example, only requires the basic intent that the actor knew or should have known that his action would lead to harmful contact with the victim. A limited number of offences are defined to require a further element in addition to basic intent, and this additional element is termed specific intent. There are two classes ...
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.
In dealing with this issue and balancing theoretical problems with public policy issues, the English law has categorised offences into two categories, those of basic intent and those of specific intent. In the latter, the defendant's intoxication will be directly relevant in forming the necessary intent.
A specific intent crime requires the doing of an act coupled with specific intent or objective. Specific intent cannot be inferred from the act. The major specific intent crimes are: conspiracy (intent to have crime completed), attempt (intent to complete a crime – whether specific or not, but falling short in completing the crime ...
The court in Heard considered a specific intent one which fitted either possible definition. [5] However, murder is again an exception: it can be committed not by intent but by virtual certainty. [6] Lord Elwyn-Jones also expressed that if a crime could be committed recklessly, it was one of basic intent.
Nevertheless, because of the potentially severe consequences of criminal conviction, judges at common law also sought proof of an intent to do some bad thing, the mens rea or guilty mind. As to crimes of which both actus reus and mens rea are requirements, judges have concluded that the elements must be present at precisely the same moment and ...
The House of Lords was mainly concerned with the extent to which self-induced drunkenness could be a defence to offences of specific intent and basic intent, the latter encompassing recklessness. The Lords ultimately ruled that self-induced intoxication could be a defence to specific intent, but not to basic intent, i.e. recklessness.
Intentionalists refer to the specific intent of the enacting legislature on a specific issue. Intentionalists can also focus on general intent. It is important to note that private motives do not eliminate the common goal that the legislature carries. This theory differs from others mainly on the types of sources that will be considered.