What are the two criteria for determining intention according to Ormerod's summary?

The criteria outlined in Ormerod's summary for determining intention are grounded in two pivotal concepts: the purpose of the actor in causing a specific result and the awareness of the likelihood of that result occurring. Intent can be evaluated by examining whether the actor's primary objective was to bring about a particular consequence, thereby indicating a purposeful act. Additionally, recognizing the virtual certainty of the result is crucial; if the individual not only desires a particular outcome but also understands that this outcome is almost inevitable, this reinforces their intention.

In contrast, the other options fail to capture the legal standards used to determine intention. The first option focuses on past behavior and emotional conditions, which do not directly correspond to the intention behind a specific act. The third option, while discussing aspects of benefit and harm, does not align with the legal definitions of intention but instead points toward consequentialist aspects of actions. The last option emphasizes evidence types, which can support or undermine a case but do not inherently define the actor's intention in legal contexts.

Therefore, the correct formulation of intention, reflecting both purpose and certainty, provides a clear legal framework for assessing the mental state of the individual in the context of criminal liability.