What constitutes an intention to commit a criminal offence has been the focus of intense common law debate for more than three decades. Intention can be separated into two sub-sections: ‘direct intent’ and ‘oblique intent.’ The preponderance of murder cases deal with the concept of direct intent, and prove to be uncomplicated as the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. When considering the concept of oblique intent, it is essential to look at the case of R v Woolin  1 WLR, alongside previous cases, to better understand how and why the appellate courts have developed the meaning of oblique intent. It is also important to note that in view of the uncertainty inherent in the judicial guidelines
The meaning of intention have been highly debated and had went through transformation throughout the years. It was R v Moloney  AC 905 which introduced the Moloney Guidelines was the first case to introduce this subject, this case was followed by R v Hancock and Shankland  3 WLR 1014 then came along the case of R v Nedrick  1 WLR 1025 the final, clarified guidance comes from R v Woolin  1 A.C. 82 . DIRECT INTENT If a defendant commits an act with an aim in mind, and he succeeds in it, it can be said that he directly intended this consequence, and therefore, has direct intent. For an example, in the case of R v White  2 KB 124 , defendant put cyanide into his mother’s lemonade drink, but she died of heart failure before the poison could kill her.
For battery there must have been the actual act and intent is not necessarily a requirement. A negligent or illegal act may be enough. For assault it is required that an actual deliberate threat was made to cause fear on the victim, and there was an attempt to commit battery.
Dunaway v. New York 442 U.S. 200 (1979), (Detention for interrogation). Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), (reviewed the application of unreasonable seizures). References; Joe HAYES v. FLORIDA, 470 U.S. 811, 105 S. Ct. 1643, 84 L. Ed. 2d 705
The mens rea is the mental element of an offence. It refers to the mental state of the accused in terms of the offence. If no mens rea is present the accused cannot be convicted with the exception of absolute or strict liability. In order for a person to be guilty of a specific crime it is expected that the defendant has the necessary mens rea.(4) ‘Intention means the conscious objective or purpose of the accused.’(1) Intention is not the same as motive or desire to achieve a particular result.
The question in this case was whether they should suppress his confession because of the non telling of his Miranda rights, and another question brought up in this case is whether the inmate was considered in custody or not. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/supreme-court-rules-on-case-involving-miranda-rights.html?_r=1)
While, at times, detention of immigrants may be justified, the seeming inability to challenge being detained and the variation in decisions according to where you are detained is troubling (End Immigration Detention Network, 2014, p.4). However, I am somewhat sceptical of the exact degree of and reason for the variation that they assert. While, certainly, variations in decision making may be due to personal biases of those reviewing a case, there may be substantial differences between the types of people detained across the country and the reasons for their detention. As such, I think more information is necessary before detention review can completely be regarded as “at the whims of an appointed board member” (End Immigration Detention Network, 2014,
The last case Defendant cites, Quinones, is almost identical to Pierce and Barrett in that the facts also involve a capias warrant issued by a trial court in an active Ohio case, when appellee failed to appear for his trial. In Quinones, defendant-appellee had gotten arrested and incarcerated in Arizona while awaiting trial on his Ohio matter. In that case also, the prisoner did everything possible to notify the appropriate prison authorities, court and prosecutor of his place of imprisonment, and promptly filed a pro se motion for speedy trial to give actual notice to the State and Court. Here too, the State failed to act in a timely manner after the detainer was set to return the prisoner to Ohio custody, and he filed a motion to dismiss
• Conclusion o Dale Hawthorn likely did not have an absolute right to enter the apartment of his former fiancé. • Rules o General Rules Alabama Statute states that a person is committing burglary when he enters a house/habitable building without authority and with intent to commit an offense.
Mens rea is criminal intent or a guilty state of mind and is the mental aspect of the crime being committed. This is limited to intentional or purposeful action or in action and is not an accident. The fifth element of the crime is causation (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Causation is a casual relationship between the legally forbidden harm and the actus reus. What this is to prevent people from having a delay or threat of criminal charges the rest of their life.
The case of R v Caldwell was concerned with the law of recklessness and what equates to recklessness in certain circumstances. The defendant had appealed to the House of Lords for his conviction of aggravated criminal damage, however this conviction was maintained. Arising from this decision, ‘Caldwell recklessness’ was formed. This stated that a person is reckless where property is destroyed or damage where: the appellant partakes in an act which creates an apparent risk of destruction or damage of property, or when the appellant formulates an act in where they have not given any thought to the consequences of their act and has continued with the act regardless.