Thread: Brains required please...

Hi Everyone

A little confused on basic criminal elements of a crime.
Oblique intention; Having an aim in mind but in order to achieve that aim, causes other consequences. Jury can infer intent if the result is a virtual certainty of the action. (E.G Nedrick;parrafin through letter box, child died though D didn't mean for that to occur, however knew it was highly probable someone could die.
How is this different to subjective recklessness (Cunningham)? This is taking an unjustified risk; forseeing that harm may occur but still did it anyway. What is then the difference between pulling a gas meter off the wall and knowing that if noxious fumes escape, someone could be harmed in the building and putting parafin through a letterbox, knowing someone could be harmed? Neither acts were meant to harm anyone and yet the first is treated as subjective recklessness and the second oblique intention.
Can anyone explain the difference here?
Thanks

The difference is in the likelihood of the result with a higher degree of probability required for intention. For oblique intent the result must be a virtual certain consequence of the act. For recklessness the defendant must foresee that the result might occur.

See further here:

mens rea intention

mens rea reckless

Hi all,
Still new in this forum but this is my two cents worth. Both are elements of mens rea but the key differentiator is the culpability of the act. In the case of intention, it is required in most serious crime under s18 of the OAPA. Hence, the standard of degree in certainty is higher in intention whereas in recklessness the foreseability of an outcome arising of an act suffices.

Coming back to pulling gas meter off the wall, it adds another dimension to the equation. Pulling the gas meter represents an act of omission in the case of preventing further harm. Case in point would be R V Miller.

Originally Posted by Silkyred

Hi Everyone

A little confused on basic criminal elements of a crime.
Oblique intention; Having an aim in mind but in order to achieve that aim, causes other consequences. Jury can infer intent if the result is a virtual certainty of the action. (E.G Nedrick;parrafin through letter box, child died though D didn't mean for that to occur, however knew it was highly probable someone could die.
How is this different to subjective recklessness (Cunningham)? This is taking an unjustified risk; forseeing that harm may occur but still did it anyway. What is then the difference between pulling a gas meter off the wall and knowing that if noxious fumes escape, someone could be harmed in the building and putting parafin through a letterbox, knowing someone could be harmed? Neither acts were meant to harm anyone and yet the first is treated as subjective recklessness and the second oblique intention.
Can anyone explain the difference here?
Thanks

Your missing the point a little I feel. recklessness has no intention necessarily to cause any serious harm or death, only risk that it MIGHT. Virtual certainty deems that it is a definate risk of injury or serious harm. Use direct and indirect intent rather than oblique intent which is the same as indirect intent.

jules

This post is really wonderful of all. Good information here. I really enjoy reading them every day. I've learned a lot from them.



public records