The
issue as to whether the accused intended the consequences of the prohibited act
or omission constituting the criminal offence charged in the indictment is a
question of fact for the jury to determine based on the evidence tendered at
trial in addition to the trial judge’s charge to the jury. In the absence of a
clear statutory definition of intention in the criminal law it is imperative
for trial judges to instruct juries in accordance with clear judicial
guidelines. However, the jurisprudence of the English and Irish superior courts
pertaining to the meaning of intention, and in particular indirect or oblique
intention, has generally been regarded as unsatisfactory with the result that
trial judges have insufficient guidelines when instructing juries. This article
evaluates the jurisprudence of the superior courts on the meaning of intention
in the criminal law. It suggests that
the guidelines formulated by the superior courts hitherto are not definitive
and may lead to confusion when trial judges instruct juries on the meaning of
intention, thus necessitating statutory reform.