Direct Intent
Direct Intent
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.
2.
3.
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