The Concept of Intention as Being Central to Criminal Liability
There is no statutory definition of Intention and there is also no agreement in English Law as to the meaning of Intention. Its meaning is to be found in judicial decisions. Unfortunately there has been lack of consistency in the approach of the courts to the issue.
The concept of intention and recklessness are distinct with one another. The definition of intention should not overlap with the definition of recklessness. It is generally accepted that it is central and core meaning of intention is aim, objective or purpose. It is generally accepted that a person intentions a consequence if it is his aim or objective. This is also known as direct intention. The issue seems to be what beyond that can be classes as intention: 1) does person intent a result if he knows that is it certain to happen although that is not his aim? 2) Does a person intend a result when he foresees the consequence as a virtual, practical or moral certainty?
“There is no scientific measurement or yardstick for gauging a person’s intention. Unfortunately, there is no form of meter which one can fix to an accused person, like an amp-meter or something of that kind, in order to ascertain what intention is, no X-ray machine which will produce a useful picture.” Per Ackner J (as he then was) in Hyam V DPP (1972).
Intention (specific intent) has no statutory definition; therefore it is necessary to look at case law. In Mohan(1975) the court gave a definition to ‘intention’ stating that was a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused power, (the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not. ‘Thus meaning that a defendant’s motive/ reason for the act are irrelevant but the fact that the defendant decided to bring about the prohibited consequence is. Intent can be divided into two kinds as direct intent and oblique intent.
Direct intent refers to a defendant’s aim, purpose or desire as it is where the defendant intends for
The concept of intention and recklessness are distinct with one another. The definition of intention should not overlap with the definition of recklessness. It is generally accepted that it is central and core meaning of intention is aim, objective or purpose. It is generally accepted that a person intentions a consequence if it is his aim or objective. This is also known as direct intention. The issue seems to be what beyond that can be classes as intention: 1) does person intent a result if he knows that is it certain to happen although that is not his aim? 2) Does a person intend a result when he foresees the consequence as a virtual, practical or moral certainty?
“There is no scientific measurement or yardstick for gauging a person’s intention. Unfortunately, there is no form of meter which one can fix to an accused person, like an amp-meter or something of that kind, in order to ascertain what intention is, no X-ray machine which will produce a useful picture.” Per Ackner J (as he then was) in Hyam V DPP (1972).
Intention (specific intent) has no statutory definition; therefore it is necessary to look at case law. In Mohan(1975) the court gave a definition to ‘intention’ stating that was a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused power, (the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not. ‘Thus meaning that a defendant’s motive/ reason for the act are irrelevant but the fact that the defendant decided to bring about the prohibited consequence is. Intent can be divided into two kinds as direct intent and oblique intent.
Direct intent refers to a defendant’s aim, purpose or desire as it is where the defendant intends for