When trying to establish the key differences between the various levels of mens rea, foresight is a significant element to consider. This includes first of all Intention, both direct and oblique. In addition to these is recklessness which is looked at subjectively and objectively. In reference to foresight they all consider a different level and therefore fabricate a different outcome and consequence. The highest and arguably most serious type of mens rea is intention, of which there are two types: direct and oblique. Direct intention has not been unanimously agreed however various judges have proposed explanations. Typically it is understood to be a person’s “aim, objective or purpose” but this has been extended upon, for instance by James …show more content…
Whilst doing this, the rock smashed the front of the cab, killing the victims inside. In this case it was held, as similar to the decision in Moloney that the jury should be directed “(a) whether D committed the acts alleged; (b) if so, whether they were of such a kind as being highly likely to cause death or serious injury; (c) if so, whether D appreciated that he was highly likely to cause death or serious injury; (d) and if so, he may be guilty of murder, but the jury should distinguish between the desire for a particular result and intent required for the commission of the offence” From this it is evident that the more probable it is that a certain outcome will occur from a particular outcome, the more likely it is that you can infer that this is intended. This suggests the importance of the relationship between probability and …show more content…
This can be seen in cases such as Nedrick where the defendant poured paraffin through the letterbox of the victims house which in turn lead to the house catching fire and furthermore killing the victim who was inside. He claimed he had wanted to start this fire merely to scare the woman and had not intended anyone to die. The judge in this trial directed the jury on the grounds of if the defendant thought it was highly probable that his act would result in serious bodily injury then he should convicted of murder however the defendant appealed this decision arguing that this was a misguidance and that instead the jury should question “(a) how probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendant’s act, and (b) whether he foresaw that consequence.” Thus it was decided that the jury should not infer the necessary intention unless they feel that the outcome was a virtual