Topic 4 - Elements of a Crime III (Intention)
Mens Rea - Mental Element
- Objective test: what a reasonable man would think, looking it as a third party
- Subjective test: looking into the mind of the accused, what was the accused thinking of
when he committed the offense
- The sorts of mental state:
1) Intention: the aim or purpose of the defendant
2) Knowledge
3) Recklessness
4) Negligence
Intention - Overview
- Up to the juries to define themselves in majority of times
- When further help is needed, the judges would tell the jury that intention must be
distinguished from motive and that if the defendant foresaw a consequence as virtually
certain, and the result was virtually certain, then the jury is entitled to find that the
defendant intended the consequence
a) Basic, specific and ulterior intent
b) Direct intention
c) Oblique intention
d) Good motives & intent
a) Basic, specific and ulterior intent
- Basic intent crimes: a crime where the intention is not essential for mens rea
- It can still be satisfied by the definition without having to prove intention, such as
recklessness
- For example, damage to property (could be recklessly but still would be liable)
- Specific intent crimes : crimes where the proof of actual intent is a necessary part of
the mens rea
- For example murder - cannot murder someone recklessly or negligently, it would
then be considered a manslaughter
- Ulterior or further intent
- S.18 - Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever
wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, …with intent to resist or
prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of
felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for
life
- The immediate intention here is to cause wound, and the ulterior is to
resist lawful apprehension (police)
, b) Direct intention
- When a person makes a decision to bring about a particular consequence or outcome
whether desired or not
- R v Mohan [1976] QB 1 (CA)
- Charged for attempting to cause bodily harm to the police officer, even though no
harm was done
- Held:
- Test: direct intention is a decision made to commit an offense (regardless
whether it was successfully carried out), and it doesn’t matter whether the
accused desire this consequence or not
- It was irrelevant whether the result was likely or unlikely to occur
- Steane [1947] KB 997
- WWII, when a British actor was found in Germany, they tried to get him to spread
propaganda of the Nazi German Army
- Initially, he resisted but got persuaded (beaten up, threatened family etc…)
- Charged for doing acts likely to assist the enemy, with the intention to assist the
enemy, contrary to the Defence (General) Regulations 1939
- If charged:
- Actus reus: doing acts likely to assist the enemy
- Mens rea: intention to assist the enemy
- Held: Not guilty - acquitted
- 2 possible views of his intent: is it done to assist the enemy or to save his
family who was threatened?
- The jury should convict only if the act complained was done to assist the
enemy
- Found it was done to save his wife and children, not to assist the enemy
- This decision perverted the concept of intention as to excuse a
defendant who was deserving (one of the exceptional cases)
- Gillick v Norfolk Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
- Health authority instructed medical practitioner that if underage girls comes for
matters of sexual intercourse, they should provide them with contraceptives
- Some people were not happy with this by doing this, it is encouraging and
assisting underage girls in sexual intercourse and an offence of rape
- Held:
- Court said It’s not their intention to encourage underage girls in sexual
intercourse, but to protect the girls (another exceptional case)
c) Oblique intention
- The defendant’s aim and purpose is not to bring about the consequence, however the
consequence is foreseeable by doing such act - a side effect
Mens Rea - Mental Element
- Objective test: what a reasonable man would think, looking it as a third party
- Subjective test: looking into the mind of the accused, what was the accused thinking of
when he committed the offense
- The sorts of mental state:
1) Intention: the aim or purpose of the defendant
2) Knowledge
3) Recklessness
4) Negligence
Intention - Overview
- Up to the juries to define themselves in majority of times
- When further help is needed, the judges would tell the jury that intention must be
distinguished from motive and that if the defendant foresaw a consequence as virtually
certain, and the result was virtually certain, then the jury is entitled to find that the
defendant intended the consequence
a) Basic, specific and ulterior intent
b) Direct intention
c) Oblique intention
d) Good motives & intent
a) Basic, specific and ulterior intent
- Basic intent crimes: a crime where the intention is not essential for mens rea
- It can still be satisfied by the definition without having to prove intention, such as
recklessness
- For example, damage to property (could be recklessly but still would be liable)
- Specific intent crimes : crimes where the proof of actual intent is a necessary part of
the mens rea
- For example murder - cannot murder someone recklessly or negligently, it would
then be considered a manslaughter
- Ulterior or further intent
- S.18 - Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever
wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, …with intent to resist or
prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of
felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for
life
- The immediate intention here is to cause wound, and the ulterior is to
resist lawful apprehension (police)
, b) Direct intention
- When a person makes a decision to bring about a particular consequence or outcome
whether desired or not
- R v Mohan [1976] QB 1 (CA)
- Charged for attempting to cause bodily harm to the police officer, even though no
harm was done
- Held:
- Test: direct intention is a decision made to commit an offense (regardless
whether it was successfully carried out), and it doesn’t matter whether the
accused desire this consequence or not
- It was irrelevant whether the result was likely or unlikely to occur
- Steane [1947] KB 997
- WWII, when a British actor was found in Germany, they tried to get him to spread
propaganda of the Nazi German Army
- Initially, he resisted but got persuaded (beaten up, threatened family etc…)
- Charged for doing acts likely to assist the enemy, with the intention to assist the
enemy, contrary to the Defence (General) Regulations 1939
- If charged:
- Actus reus: doing acts likely to assist the enemy
- Mens rea: intention to assist the enemy
- Held: Not guilty - acquitted
- 2 possible views of his intent: is it done to assist the enemy or to save his
family who was threatened?
- The jury should convict only if the act complained was done to assist the
enemy
- Found it was done to save his wife and children, not to assist the enemy
- This decision perverted the concept of intention as to excuse a
defendant who was deserving (one of the exceptional cases)
- Gillick v Norfolk Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
- Health authority instructed medical practitioner that if underage girls comes for
matters of sexual intercourse, they should provide them with contraceptives
- Some people were not happy with this by doing this, it is encouraging and
assisting underage girls in sexual intercourse and an offence of rape
- Held:
- Court said It’s not their intention to encourage underage girls in sexual
intercourse, but to protect the girls (another exceptional case)
c) Oblique intention
- The defendant’s aim and purpose is not to bring about the consequence, however the
consequence is foreseeable by doing such act - a side effect
