Lord Bridge, in R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025 (HL), made it clear that it was the jury's task to decide on the matter of intention. He stated that the word should be given its ordinary meaning and that judges should generally avoid defining the term intention, beyond explaining that it differs from 'desire' and 'motive'.

'The golden rule should be that, when directing a jury on the mental element necessary in a crime of specific intent, the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what it meant by intent, and leave it to the jury's good sense to decide whether the accused acted with necessary intent, unless the judge is convinced that, on the facts and having regard to the way the case has been presented to the jury in evidence and argument, some further elaboration is strictly necessary to avoid misunderstanding.'

Case law has recognised that a defendant may 'intend' a result because it is the purpose of his act.