Scribd
Upload
31 views4 pages

Understanding Indirect Intention in Law

The document discusses the concept of mens rea, or 'guilty mind', in criminal law, emphasizing its importance in determining liability for offenses. It outlines the hierarchy of mens rea, including intention, recklessness, and negligence, while detailing the distinctions between direct and indirect intention. Additionally, it explores the evolution of recklessness tests in legal cases, ultimately advocating for a subjective approach to assessing recklessness in criminal damage cases.

Uploaded by

Fatema Mohyed
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views4 pages

Understanding Indirect Intention in Law

The document discusses the concept of mens rea, or 'guilty mind', in criminal law, emphasizing its importance in determining liability for offenses. It outlines the hierarchy of mens rea, including intention, recklessness, and negligence, while detailing the distinctions between direct and indirect intention. Additionally, it explores the evolution of recklessness tests in legal cases, ultimately advocating for a subjective approach to assessing recklessness in criminal damage cases.

Uploaded by

Fatema Mohyed
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

The concept of mens rea in criminal law refers to the defendant’s

state of mind when committing an offense. It is a Latin word that


means guilty mind. Generally, there is a basic characteristic of
common law, communicate in Latin phrase translated as “the act is
not culpable unless the mind is guilty” in Coke’s Third
institute. . It means that a person is not liable unless it has mens
rea or guilty mind for the offense committed. However there is an
exception in strick liability crimes, where the mens rea for the
offense is not required. Moreover, one can also be held in the
doctrine of transferred intent R v Gnango. There are three main
levels of mens rea which are named as Intention, recklessness
and Negligence based on Subjective and objective approach.

Intention
There is a mens rea hierarchy. The highest level of guilt is intent.
Because intentionality is linked to the most serious crimes, it is at
the top of this pyramid. The highest level of culpability is
intentionality, which means that a person who wants to commit a
crime is more guilty than someone who acts foolishly. It is defined
as “the decision to bring about prohibited consequence “,
stated in R v Mohan 1976.

However there is a quite different between intention and motive,


people sometimes mixed them up with the same literal meaning.
(According to Lord Bridge in R v Moloney [1985 ] AC 905 Case
summary), the intention is distinct from purpose or desire. As a
result, a person who murders a loved one who is dying of a terminal
illness in order to relieve pain and suffering may have good
intentions. This does not, however, exclude them from having the
essential intent to kill. R v Inglis 2011 is a good example.

As previously stated, intent is linked to the most serious crimes such


as murder, rape, and so on. Finding out what the defendant
intended as a result or what action he or she intended to take is a
crucial part of the offense. While the intent is a key element in these
crimes, there are two ways to determine intent: direct or indirect.
We'll start with direct intention and then move on to indirect
intention.

Direct intention
The direct intention will be followed in the majority of the cases. For
example, a intends to kill B, to attain this he gets a pistol from the
cupboard, loads it up and shoots B in the head. As observed in this
example the defendant accomplished the desired consequences.
Indirect Intention

The second type of intention is the indirect intention, where the


defendant doesn't have the direct intent to commit an offence but
an oblique. It was defined by G. Williams “ it includes not only
the desire of the consequence but also foresight of the
certainty of the consequence as a matter of legal
definition”.
There was a different perspective regarding the test as to whether a
subjective or objective approach should be adopted. The house of
lords in 1960 verified in the case of DPP b Smith that the objective
approach should be adopted. Whereas, In the case of Hayam v DPP
1975, the house of the lords revised the test operated in Hayam
and held that a subjective approach should be considered by the
courts in deciding the case related to indirect intention. It is
important to note here that it was the first time the court considered
oblique intent. However, it was held in Molony 1985 that there is
only one type of intention and that is direct, moreover the HOL, in
this case, rejected the test of Hayam.

The approach adopted in Hayam was nevertheless upheld in


Nedrick 1980 and held that subjective approach should be used.
This principle was approved in Wollin 1999, which is the current
test of indirect intention.

Recklessness
It is affirmed that recklessness implies the accused as unconcerned
regarding the harmful or devastating effects. This indicates that a
recognized risk was overlooked, implying subjective recklessness.
Sometimes a risk will be identified by the accused and he may reject
it as being so negligible as to be a reasonable one to take. For
example, the law allows the use of reasonable force in the lawful
arrest of an offender, and if performing so if the defendant forces
the Victims car off the road, that can not be reckless as it was
reasonable force to lawfully arrest Renouf 1896.
In criminal law, it is a difficult area to understand and apply. It is also
complicated to determine whether the subjective or objective test
should assign.

The leading case in this area at the time found that a subjective test
applied to determine recklessness in the context of criminal damage
is R v Cunningham 1957 where it was held that; Malicious or
intention to harm is specifies in two points;
1) having the intention to execute the particular type of harm is
already done or
2) reckless about whether such harm should occur or not (i.e., the
accused take the risk despite of that fact that he has for seen the
specific type of harm). In the cases of R v Spratt 1990 and R V
parameter 1991, the precedent set out in Cunningham test was
applied and the trial judges directed the jury that it was enough
that Defendant should have foreseen the the risk.

This gave rise to Cunningham's recklessness, which evaluates if the


defendant foresaw or might have foreseen the harm that resulted
from his acts, yet continued regardless of the risk. This test was
obeyed in R v Briggs 1976 and R v Parker 1976, where this test
was modified and held that closing one’s eye to the apparent risk is
not a reasonable defence and one can not rely on Cunningham
principle as per CDA 1971. Furthermore in R v Stephenson 1979,
these previous cases were assessed critically by the Court of appeal
where it was held that the test should be entirely subjective. The
defendant should not be liable if he did not foresee a hazard of
damage.

It was now accepted that the Cunningham test would be applied to


the offences of damaging property under the Malicious damage
act 1861. This test was however altered in the leading case of
MPC V CALDWELL 1982, where it was held that when a property
is damaged or destroyed, the defendant would be reckless if his act
develops an obvious risk that it will destroy. This principle
developed with time and was given the name of Caldwell
Recklessness where the situation was analyzed objectively. This
test was followed in the case of Lawrence 1982. This case received
extensive criticism from the excellences. So instead of developing
clarity in the subjective approach. This case analyzed the law
principles from a whole new perspective and introduced an objective
approach in the law of recklessness. The main criticism of the
subjective method is that it is based solely on the defendant's mind
and the prosecution has to prove the defendant's state of mind
while committing an offense. Whereas the objection to the objective
approach is that it sometimes causes injustice to those who are not
able to foresee the harm to those who genuinely did not foresee
harm as happened in the case of Elliott v C 1983. Where a 14-year
girl of low intelligence was held liable under Caldwell.
However this approach was overruled by R v G and R 2003, and it
is held that the subjective approach Is more appropriate and
justifiable then objective approach in Criminal damage. Therefore,
now the current law on recklessness is that it should be examined
subjectively.
The final conclusion on this debate of subjective and objective test
would be that, when the risk is obvious and the defendant knew
about that risk still go on to take it, he would be held liable.
Secondly, the awareness of the risk to the defendant would be
examined subjectively and while the third point is that taking the
risk would be assessed objectively from the reasonable person
perspective.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Differentiating between direct and indirect intention involves legal complications as their distinction affects the evaluation of criminal liability. Direct intention is straightforward, involving a clear aim to achieve a specific outcome . Indirect intention, however, involves outcomes the defendant foresees as virtually certain but does not directly aim for, complicating intent assessment . The courts have developed tests such as the subjective approach in R v Woollin (1999), reforming the earlier R v Moloney (1985) standard, focusing on whether the defendant foresaw the outcome as a near certainty, thus addressing the nuanced nature of indirect intention .

The test for recklessness shifted from a subjective basis established in R v Cunningham (1957), assessing whether the defendant foresaw the risk but went on regardless, to an objective approach introduced in MPC v Caldwell (1982). This shift demanded considering what a reasonable person would foresee, leading to criticisms as it could unfairly convict those genuinely unaware of risks, as seen in Elliott v C (1983). R v G and R (2003) reversed this, reinstating the subjective test, emphasizing that the defendant's awareness of risk should be considered, reflecting the defendant's actual mental state during the offense .

Mens rea contributes to distinguishing between degrees of criminal culpability by classifying mental states into intention, recklessness, and negligence, each reflecting different levels of guilt. Intention, at the top of the hierarchy, involves a deliberate decision to bring about a prohibited consequence, linked to serious crimes like murder . Recklessness involves disregarding a known risk, lying intermediate between intention and negligence . Negligence, the least culpable, involves failing to foresee a risk the average person would foresee. This classification aids in tailoring legal consequences to the severity of the mental state accompanying the criminal act .

The outcome of R v G and R (2003) was the overruling of the earlier objective Caldwell recklessness standard, favoring a subjective approach to recklessness. This decision underscored the necessity to evaluate what the defendant actually foresaw rather than what a reasonable person would have foreseen, reinstating the guidance from R v Cunningham . This reshaped the legal landscape by emphasizing personal awareness in defining recklessness, thereby rectifying previous unjust rulings and aligning legal standards closer with the notion of individual culpability .

Initially, the House of Lords in DPP v Smith (1960) adopted an objective test for indirect intention, focusing on what a reasonable person would foresee . This was revised to a subjective approach in Hayam v DPP (1975), considering the defendant's state of mind . In R v Moloney (1985), the court reverted to emphasizing direct intention, rejecting the subjective approach . However, R v Nedrick (1980) and, ultimately, R v Woollin (1999) reinforced the subjective test, affirming that indirect intention should be assessed based on the defendant's perspective, making it the current legal standard .

Mens rea is crucial in criminal law as it refers to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of committing an offense, embodying the principle of "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty" . In determining criminal liability, mens rea indicates that a person must have a guilty mind (intention, recklessness, or negligence) to be held liable for a crime. However, strict liability offenses deviate from this principle as they do not require mens rea; the mere act of committing the offense is sufficient for liability .

Transferred intent in the context of mens rea operates on the premise that the intent to harm one person can be transferred to the actual harm caused to another person, thereby holding the defendant liable for the unintended consequence. This concept is legally significant as it expands the reach of intent-related liability by acknowledging the defendant’s initial illicit intention, even if the ultimate victim is different from the intended one .

The objective test for recklessness has been criticized for potentially causing injustice by convicting those unable to foresee harm, as it relies on a generic standard of a reasonable person rather than individual circumstances . This was particularly evident in Elliott v C (1983), where a young girl with low intelligence was unfairly held liable . These criticisms highlight the importance of subjective evaluation in providing a fairer assessment by considering the defendant's actual awareness and intentions, ensuring the liability accurately reflects the individual's mental state .

Differentiating between intention and motive is crucial in legal adjudication because intention pertains to the deliberate aim to bring about a result, whereas motive relates to the underlying reason for acting. This distinction avoids conflating potentially good motives with legal intentions, which determine culpability . R v Inglis exemplified this distinction by highlighting that a person can possess a benevolent motive, such as relieving suffering, while simultaneously harboring the required intent to kill, making them legally guilty despite the motive being compassionate .

The subjective approach in recklessness enhances justice by ensuring liability in criminal damage cases accurately reflects the defendant’s awareness of risks. Unlike the objective approach requiring conformity to a reasonable person standard , the subjective approach considers whether the defendant personally foresaw a risk, offering a more personalized and fair determination of liability . This rectifies issues like those seen in Elliott v C (1983), where an objective standard led to unjust outcomes for individuals lacking foresight based on personal limitations, thereby aligning more closely with principles of individual culpability .

You might also like