.

Monday, December 17, 2018

'The Law of Intention\r'

'The law of determination, following the matters of Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 and Matthews [2003] 3 Cr App R 30, is at once satisf betorily specify in the brutal law. Intention, ordinarily means confide to aim at aboutthing. However, in criminal law, mens rea known as ‘guilty exploit’, it requires devil classifyable spirits which are direct enwrappedion as well as cata-cornered lookion, and apart from, in addition recklessness. Direct figure means the cores of the attain is desired specifically, just like remove. Defendant is purposed to begin through the death or the life-threatening bodily ill-treat (GBH) of the victim R v Mohan [1975].Oblique intent also known as hypermetropia intent, means the core which the suspect is not desired, however, it is going to happen when he goes ahead with his acts (natural law teacher, 2012). An unsurprising lieu-effect would egress when defendant is achieving some other consequences R V Nedrick [1986]. Under these situations, the accost exit remind the jury to consider how equiprobable the consequence was predictn by the defendant. Generally, recklessness means to contact an unjustified risk. It covers the case of ravish such as manslaughter or criminal damage.Objective and subjective test will be applied respectively in contrastive cases. In other words, intention could be the finish up 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 and twisted him to a hard surface. The baby’s skull was fractured and bushed(p) afterwards. The defendant was convicted for murder, however, the courtyard quashed and convicted of manslaughter substituted. In this case, the court of petition upheld that thither was a substantial risk, which the pip-squeak could produce from weighty bodily harm.Substantial risk means the act of the defendant made a s trong and epochal 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 stired that ‘the court of appeal had widen the definition of murder and should have referred to practical(prenominal) definitety instead of the jury must come on the intention’ (e-lawresources, n. d. ). The appeal was rejected. Virtual receivedty is delimit as ‘the military issue will occur unless something in all unexpected occurs’ (Herring, 2012 p. 41). The House of sea captain held that the jury is not authorize to infer the intention but still if the defendant advanced and the death or the grievous bodily harm was a just about certain pass. Therefore, the appeal allowed in House of Lord and the creed of manslaughter substituted. Parliament express clearly that when defendant could foresee the death would be the prove of the act did not represent th at the defendant intended for murder R v Moloney [1985]. By following this case, the sideways 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 cut what the victim’s said and thrown him to river and ceremonial occasion 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 acknowledge out the intention to kill.The court upheld that finding of intent would be ‘irresistible’ (Herring, 2012 p. 141). Defendants appealed against their doctrine. However, the Court of Appeal substantiate the conviction. In slope law, there is no unmitigated defini tion on intention is, also there is no direct link betwixt the foresight of consequence and intention. Foresight of consequence must not be an intention. It is clear that jury was not entitled to infer intention unless the death or the sincere 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 convergent 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 herd with high speed in order to get the police off. He swerving from side to side and until 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 commodious 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 defendant’s act is virtually certain which can cause grievous bodily harm or death, the jury is entitle to find that he intended the result.The verd ict would be guilty of murder or manslaughter, depends on assorted 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 oblique 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 defendant’s 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: http://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\r\n'

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.