29.03.2013 Views

CSS 152 MAIN.pdf - National Open University of Nigeria

CSS 152 MAIN.pdf - National Open University of Nigeria

CSS 152 MAIN.pdf - National Open University of Nigeria

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>CSS</strong> <strong>152</strong> INTRODUCTION TO NIGERIA CRIMINAL LAW<br />

These are<br />

i. Intention<br />

ii. Recklessness<br />

iii. Negligence<br />

iv. Accident and<br />

v. Unconsciousness<br />

i. Intention<br />

This can only be derived from the circumstance <strong>of</strong> a particular <strong>of</strong>fence.<br />

Intention here revolves around the issues <strong>of</strong> forseeability and<br />

desirability.<br />

It simply stated that a man intends a consequence <strong>of</strong> his action when he<br />

foresees that it may result in harm and desires that he should do so.<br />

Therefore, desire <strong>of</strong> consequence is the hallmark <strong>of</strong> intention no matter<br />

how vague or unconscious that desire may be.<br />

Thus if for example in the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> burglary as contained in S. 411 <strong>of</strong><br />

the Criminal Code, specific intents is to be proved by the prosecution, it<br />

must be strictly proved in accordance with the law. See for example the<br />

case <strong>of</strong> R. v. Steane (1974) KB 997.<br />

There is however a distinction between the common law rules and<br />

intention can be seen in S. 24 <strong>of</strong> the Criminal Code. At common law,<br />

there is the doctrine <strong>of</strong> transferred malice as is illustrated in the case <strong>of</strong><br />

R. v. Latimer (1886)17 QB 359. In <strong>Nigeria</strong> and particularly under S. 24<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Criminal Code, a person must act dependently on the exercise <strong>of</strong><br />

his will (i.e. with intention) before he can be guilty <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence<br />

charged.<br />

Compare the above case <strong>of</strong> Latimer with another case to wit; R. v.<br />

Pemblition (1874) LR 2 in which the court said that the intent to harm a<br />

group <strong>of</strong> people cannot be transferred to the breaking <strong>of</strong> a window.<br />

a. Intention and Motive Distinguished<br />

Having seen what intention is all about, it is sound to state that motive is<br />

reason for the accused person’s conduct which has induced him to act<br />

unlawfully but which does not form part <strong>of</strong> the metal element <strong>of</strong> an<br />

<strong>of</strong>fence.<br />

Intention therefore must be distinguished from motive, for, according to<br />

the third limb <strong>of</strong> S.24 <strong>of</strong> the Criminal Code, unless otherwise expressly<br />

17

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!