Explain and evaluate the extent to which the decision of the House of Lords in Woollin (1999) AC 82 has clarified the meaning of the concept of intention in English criminal law.
             The expression mens rea refers to the state of mind expressly or impliedly required by the definition of the offence charged.1 Four different levels of mens rea exist, Recklessness, Negligence, Strict liability and intention, also referred to as specific intent. A certain set of crimes can only be committed if you have the intention to commit them. If you do not intend to kill someone, you cannot be convicted of murder, as you do not have the necessary mens rea.
             The mens rea term 'intention conveys the highest level of culpability of an offender. If the result is intended by the person he would be considered more culpable than a person who would act recklessly. It would be reasonable enough to assume that such a widely used term as intention would have been clearly determined by now. However there always was one settled proposition, if a person desires something and acts in order to achieve it, the result is regarded as intended. This is most commonly known as the 'ordinary meaning'. The definitions of many criminal offences include terms relating to the intention of the perpetrator. Intention is often used for the jury to decide whether the accused had the intention to carry out the act charged. The courts have tried to suggest that the word intention is not a legal word but a word in every day use.
             Intention can be direct, the result is the desire or purpose, or it could be oblique, where the offender is virtually certain his act would lead to the result. There has been much debate and several cases on the precise meaning of intention, especially regarding murder. Over the last thirty years or so, the meaning of intention has varied. The law on oblique intent has recently been clarified by the House of Lords, in R v Woo...