Abstract
The Law Commission contended that a person should not be held as having oblique intention with respect to a result if his whole purpose in acting is to avoid this result. This article asserts that the Commission was wrong concerning this point. The justifications that it gave for the rule it suggested are not convincing, while the rationales for the doctrine of oblique intention apply even to cases in which the whole purpose of the actor, in acting, is to avoid the proscribed result.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.