You are on page 1of 3

Direct intent:

The majority of cases will be quite straight forward and involve direct
intent. Direct intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on
a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. E.g. D
intends to kill his wife. To achieve that result he gets a knife from the
kitchen, sharpens it and then stabs her, killing her. The conduct achieves
the desired result.
Oblique intent:
Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where
the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired
result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about
another result. E.g. D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be
on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows
that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew
of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in
carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the
passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths
will happen as a result of his actions.
The courts have struggled to find an appropriate test to apply in cases of
oblique intent. In particular the questions which have vexed the courts
are:
1.

Should the test be subjective or objective?

2.

What degree of probability is required before it can be said that the


defendant intended the result?

3.

Whether the degree of probability should be equal to intention or


whether it is evidence of intention from which the jury may infer
intention

Subjective or objective test


A subjective test is concerned with the defendant's perspective. In
relation to oblique intent it would be concerned only with whether the
defendant did foresee the degree of probability of the result occurring
from his actions. An objective test looks at the perspective of a
reasonable person. I.e. would a reasonable person have foreseen the
degree of probability of the result occurring from the defendant's actions.
It is arguable, that since intention requires the highest degree of fault, it
should be solely concerned with the defendant's perception. In addition,
intention seems to be a concept which naturally requires a subjective
inquiry. It seems somehow wrong to decide what the defendant's

intention was by reference to what a reasonable person would have


contemplated.
Causation refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendant's conduct (or
omission) caused the harm or damage. Causation must be established in all
result crimes. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation
and legal causation. Factual causation is the starting point and consists of
applying the 'but for' test. In most instances, where there exist no complicating
factors, factual causation on its own will suffice to establish causation.
However, in some circumstances it will also be necessary to consider legal
causation. Under legal causation the result must be caused by a culpable act,
there is no requirement that the act of the defendant was the only cause, there
must be no novus actus interveniens and the defendant must take his victim
as he finds him (thin skull rule).

Factual causation
Factual causation is established by applying the 'but for' test. This asks, 'but for
the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?' If yes, the result
would have occurred in any event, the defendant is not liable. If the answer is
no, the defendant is liable as it can be said that their action was a factual cause
of the result.

Legal Causation
1. Legal causation requires that the harm must result from a culpable act.
However, this does not apply where the offence is one of strict liability:

2. The defendant's action need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm, but
it must be more than minimal
3. There must be no novus actus interveniens.
A novus actus interveniens is a new intervening act which breaks the chain of
causation. Different tests apply to decide if the chain has been broken depending
on the intervening party.
a). Act of a third party
The act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the
action was foreseeable
b). The act of the victim
Where the act is of the victim, the chain of causation will not be broken unless
the victim's actions are disproportionate or unreasonable in the circumstances:
c) Medical intervention

Where medical intervention contributes to death, the courts have been


inconsistent in their approach.
4. Thin skull rule (egg shell skull rule)
Under the thin skull rule, the defendant must take his victim as he finds him.
This means if he has a particularly vulnerable victim he is fully liable for the
consequences to them even if an ordinary person would not have suffered such
severe consequences. For example if D commits a minor assault on V who has a
heart condition and V suffers a heart attack and dies. D is liable for the death of
V even though such an attack would result in no physical harm to some one
without a heart condition.
This rule applies irrespective of whether the defendant was aware of the
condition. The thin skull rule also applies where the victim has refused medical
treatment which would have saved them:

You might also like