Intention leads the guilty party to have prior foresight of consequences that will take place should the act be carried out.
It is different from recklessness since on a subjective basis, there remains foresight without the hope of actually bringing about results. The problem in the courts of law is that the borderline between intention and recklessness is too vague. The court has to decide the extent of the desire to carry out the act and convert recklessness into intention. In DPP v Smith (1961) AC 290, the test was that the individual was taken to foresee and intend to bring about the likeliest actions if he carried out his intentions.
One, 'subjective' recklessness; In this case the defendant understands that a risk may occur if a certain action is carried out, still despite knowing this he still chooses to take that action ignoring the results of his actions. This is often seen when the guilty party decides to drive under the influence knowing full well that his actions could cause an accident.
Two, 'objective' recklessness arises when it is apparent to everyone apart from the defendant that there was a risk. Therefore the risk is so apparent that despite the defendant claims not to have considered the risk this is irrelevant.
Intention has many different levels at the most serious intention can lead to murder. ...