MR - Intention

Question 0

What is meant by intention

Answer 0

Eg goal, aim, purpose

Question 1

What are the 3 types of MR

Answer 1

Intention
Recklessness
Negligence

Question 2

What type of MR is the most serious

Answer 2

Intention

Question 3

What are the 2 types of intention

Answer 3

Direct and oblique

Question 4

What is direct intention

Answer 4

Where D forsaw a particular result- defined in Maloney

Question 5

What is oblique intention

Answer 5

Where It wasn’t D’s purpose to kill or seriously harm however, they knew it would inevitably lead to it

Question 6

Criticisms of oblique intention

Answer 6

Parliament hasn’t defined it
Up to the jury wether necessary intent was present
Developed through case law

Question 7

Is the test for oblique intention subjective or objective and what case does it come from

Answer 7

Oblique

DPP v Smith “D had intent for murder bc an ordinary person would’ve seen risk”

Question 8

Where does guidance for the oblique intent come from

Answer 8

Statutory guidance

S.8 cja 1967

Question 9

Nedrick

Answer 9

COA made an oblique intention test

1) how probable was the consequence
2) did D foresee the consequence as virtually certain

Question 10

Which case does the test for oblique intention come from

Answer 10

Nedrick

Question 11

What case was the Nedrick test approved in

Answer 11

Woolin

Question 12

What is the leading case on oblique intention

Answer 12

Woolin

Question 13

Matthews and Alleyne

Answer 13

Judge misdirected jury by telling them ‘if D had appreciated that pushing V into a river would be virtually certain to result in death the he MUST HAVE intended to kill’
Virtual certainty test is evidence not a definition and the jury should’ve been directed that THEY had to draw a conclusion as to wether D had intention or not

Question 14

What is transferred malice

Answer 14

If D has the men’s rea for a crime but does the actus reus of the crime against another person than intended, D is still guilty

Question 15

Latimer

Answer 15

D argued he had no MR to attack woman. Court said the intention for the crime against the man could be transferred onto the woman he actually attacked.

Question 16

Pembliton

Answer 16

D threw stone intending to hit someone. Missed and hit a window, charged with criminal damage.
Conviction was quashed bc intention can’t be transferred between crimes.

Question 17

What is contemporaneity

Answer 17

AR and MR must be present at the same time in order to be guilty

Question 18

Fagan

Answer 18

D drove over policemans foot by accident. When he realised he turned engine off. D argued when he drove on foot he had no MR
COA said that driving on V’s foot and staying there was a continuing act. It was enough that at one point he had enough MR

Question 19

Thabo meli

Answer 19

D tired to kill a man. Believing he was dead he pushed him off a cliff. V died at bottom of cliff. D argued when AR occurred he had no MR. Courts may treat a series of acts as one transaction if the men’s rea was present at any time then it coincides with AR