Intention & recklessness

Question 1

What are the two types of intention?

Answer 1

• Direct intent
• Indirect (oblique) intent

Question 2

What is direct intent?

Answer 2

Where the consequence is what D aims to happen
* for jury to decide matter of intention
* word should be given ordinary meaning and that judges should avoid defining term intention beyond explaining that it differs from ‘desire’ and ‘motive’

Question 3

What is oblique intent?

Answer 3

Where consequence is not D’s purpose but rather a side effect that D accepts as an inevitable or certain accompaniment to D’s direct intention.
* test is that when charge is murder and in rare cases, jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find necessary intention unless they feel that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty resulting from D’s action and that D appreciated that.

Seen as evidence of intention (like motive) - used in rare circumstances and when intention is the only form of mens rea for offence - so if recklessness is available, that must be used

Question 4

What is recklessness?

Answer 4

When a person does not intend to cause harmful result but sees a risk of harm and goes ahead anyway.
To be criminally liable for this, risk taking must be unjustifiable. If justifiable then there is a social utility or value to activity against likelihood and amount of harm that might happen.

Form of mens rea

Question 5

When does a person act recklessly?

Answer 5

• A circumstance when he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist,
• A result when he is aware of risk that will occur and it is, in circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take risk.