Mens Rea # 1 - Direct and Indirect intention 

HEy...you are best LAw teacher Ive heard so far ;)

anyone.. indirect same as oblique right?

I found the video very interesting and informative especially in the contradictory part of the need of wide but narrow (from direct intent) definition of indirect intent

God! Your way of explaining is absolutely flawless. Highly appreciate!

Thanks for the videos mate they're really helpful, keep it up.

Very informative lecture. I found it authoritative and really quite fantastic!

Do you aslo do contract lectures??? been watching your videos. very impressed! Thank you so much

oh Thank youuu so much for this useful video. Today is my exam.. Keep going ! all the best!

Yes they are the same Jess

Brilliant videos mate

Thanks for these lectures, i couldnt thank you enough for it but please i have one question that why was nedrick and woolin conviction was substituted to manslaughter other the mis direction, which part of the two test could not be satisfied, was it that death was not a virtual certainty in those cases or that defendant didnt appreciated that that was the case thanks i ll be waiting for you answers

Very helpful, thanks for the upload.

Thank you so much for helpful videos

This video is incredible.

Thank you Geng

quite a helpful video!

Thanks for the vedios, they are too helpful

Is knowing and intent the same?

Great video, keep it up.

In R v Woollin (1998) [minute 11:00- 11:30], you said that if the Jury felt that death or bodily harm was virtually certain then they had the right to draw an inference of direct or indirect intention. But, isn't it the case that in the case of Woollin, the Law Lords said that the Jury were entitled to 'find' the necessary intent if death or bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and if the defendant appreciated that such was the case

Thank you

This is great, thank you so much :)

Correct me if I'm wrong: So virtually certian means that the consequence is certian (very likely) to happen. And if the defendant knew that the consequences where virtually certian then they had a direct intention for the consequences to occur. However if the defendant didn't foresee the consequences of their actions as virtually certian then it is an oblique intention therefore they will have a shorter sentence. So if the victim had died and the defendant knew that it was virtually certian then they will be liable for muder but if they didn't know that it was virtually certian then they will only be liable for manslaughter.

how did you do it can you share with me , thank you

Is specific intent the same as direct intent? What is the difference between ulteiror intent, and basic intent and specific?

Instant sub!

Superb videos.

hi there, anyone has the slides of these lessons ? :D cheers

Is this still on the current syllabus? I’m aware this video was posted 7 years ago but thought I’d ask

Good Day. Due to my demanding job, i am looking for online lectures such as this one to help me speed up my learning. Would this lecture be sufficient material for the exam??? Please let me know, i would greatly appreciate any response. Regards Johannes

Hello Sir.

👍👍

Have you got an email? Wanted to enquire about tutoring please? I'm a second year LLB law student and I would really appreciate it if you could help! Thank you

Case of r v Mohan is quite relevent for indirect intent as his aim was to escape and not to kill the police officer

anyone here at degree level lmao

CovidImages need to be invested more than half19