• The Open University

• LAW W111

Shannon Burke- l1084844 TMA02. W111 TMA 02 email proforma To: [email protected] CC: Subject: File reference number LCRJ2377 Hi Laura, I’ve been working on Mr Jones’ file for some time now. Below I’ve set out my answers to the questions you had asked in your recent email. 1. The factual causation test is sometimes referred to as the ‘but for’ test (OU 2022a 5.5.2). To be able to prove the defendant is criminally liable you must first be able to identify the factual causation. This means that the prosecution must prove that if it wasn’t for the behaviour of the defendant such results would not have occurred. An example of this could be if the defendant was driving whilst on their phone and ran somebody over causing death, factual causation would be established and the defendant would be criminally liable. This is due to the ‘but for’ test. ‘But for’ the driver being on their phone, the victim wouldn’t have been ran over and therefore death wouldn’t have occurred. 2. There is no statutory definition of ‘intention’, but the courts have developed two tests to determine what are known as direct intention and oblique intention (OU 2022a 5.6.2). Direct intention is when the defendant has a direct objective or intention to kill an individual. An example could be if someone was to stab another person, they are intending to cause them serious harm or death. It does not matter what the end result may be. The fact that the defendant stabbed the victim shows that there was direct intention to kill or cause serious harm and they will therefore face a conviction of murder. Oblique intention is ma