Continuing act is when mens rea and actus reus don’t happen at the same time but it still
counts as they happened in the same mindset
An exception to the correspondence principle
Culpability exists on a scale:
Intention is the highest on the scale
Recklessness
Negligence
Strict liability is the lowest on the scale and this is offences such as driving offences
that don’t require any mens rea
3 types of intention:
Specific intent
Ulterior intent
Basic intent
Some offences need specific intent and some just need basic intent
There is no specific statutory meaning of intent, it’s only defined through common law
and cases
Specific intent:
This is where they must find they had the intent
E.g. in cases of murder they have to find they intended to kill or cause serious harm
to the person
This is because the penalty attached to the charge is very serious so they have to be
certain that was their intention, to make sure that they are fairly treated in all aspects
of the criminal justice system
Ulterior Intent:
AKA oblique intent
This doesn’t apply to many offences
It’s when the mens rea takes the offence beyond the actus reus
The mens rea isn’t particularly to commit the offence but the idea that the
consequence was an almost certain outcome of the act so it counts as the intention
because the defendant appreciates the outcome was very likely
S20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
GBH with or without a weapon will be guilty and liable to 5 years in prison
S18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
GBH with intent to cause GBH will be liable to imprisonment for life
For these 2 the actus reus can be exactly the same, the difference is the mental
state, for S20 its reckless intent but for S18 it must be specific intent
E.g swinging a bat around (reckless) and accidently causing GBH would be 5 years
but doing it deliberately would be intent and life imprisonment
, Basic Intent:
This counts for a lot of offences, it’s the most prevalent kind of intent
It can be carried out recklessly or intentionally
S1 Criminal Damage Act
Can intend to cause criminal damage or can recklessly cause damage and
it’s the same charge
2 Forms of Intention:
Direct intention
Indirect intention
Direct Intention -
What is it?
Planning to kill someone then killing someone is direct intention
Straightforward way of explaining intention, it’s a direct link between the person and
the outcome
Not always as straightforward as it is often not admitted and causes problems in case
law
Motivation:
If you want the life insurance from your husband's death and then he dies because of
your wish to do this and your actions mean this happens and you get life insurance
you have the motivation
This isn’t the same as intention
Aim, Purpose and Objective:
Whether this is the same as intention has given rise to some case law to explain it
Chandler [1946] A.C. 763
S1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911
He broke into a nuclear base as part of a protest against what they do
He was arrested under this act because he broke into the states property and
broke the law
He claimed their purpose for breaking in was to inform and raise awareness
of what they do there
The question was whether or not this was the same as intention
The judge said that they can have more than one purpose and even though
one of them was to raise public awareness, the other was to immobilise the
base for a period of time
He said it doesn’t matter what they call it, they intended to immobilise the
base and therefore they had the intention for this crime, the purpose was
objectively defined as the intention
counts as they happened in the same mindset
An exception to the correspondence principle
Culpability exists on a scale:
Intention is the highest on the scale
Recklessness
Negligence
Strict liability is the lowest on the scale and this is offences such as driving offences
that don’t require any mens rea
3 types of intention:
Specific intent
Ulterior intent
Basic intent
Some offences need specific intent and some just need basic intent
There is no specific statutory meaning of intent, it’s only defined through common law
and cases
Specific intent:
This is where they must find they had the intent
E.g. in cases of murder they have to find they intended to kill or cause serious harm
to the person
This is because the penalty attached to the charge is very serious so they have to be
certain that was their intention, to make sure that they are fairly treated in all aspects
of the criminal justice system
Ulterior Intent:
AKA oblique intent
This doesn’t apply to many offences
It’s when the mens rea takes the offence beyond the actus reus
The mens rea isn’t particularly to commit the offence but the idea that the
consequence was an almost certain outcome of the act so it counts as the intention
because the defendant appreciates the outcome was very likely
S20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
GBH with or without a weapon will be guilty and liable to 5 years in prison
S18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
GBH with intent to cause GBH will be liable to imprisonment for life
For these 2 the actus reus can be exactly the same, the difference is the mental
state, for S20 its reckless intent but for S18 it must be specific intent
E.g swinging a bat around (reckless) and accidently causing GBH would be 5 years
but doing it deliberately would be intent and life imprisonment
, Basic Intent:
This counts for a lot of offences, it’s the most prevalent kind of intent
It can be carried out recklessly or intentionally
S1 Criminal Damage Act
Can intend to cause criminal damage or can recklessly cause damage and
it’s the same charge
2 Forms of Intention:
Direct intention
Indirect intention
Direct Intention -
What is it?
Planning to kill someone then killing someone is direct intention
Straightforward way of explaining intention, it’s a direct link between the person and
the outcome
Not always as straightforward as it is often not admitted and causes problems in case
law
Motivation:
If you want the life insurance from your husband's death and then he dies because of
your wish to do this and your actions mean this happens and you get life insurance
you have the motivation
This isn’t the same as intention
Aim, Purpose and Objective:
Whether this is the same as intention has given rise to some case law to explain it
Chandler [1946] A.C. 763
S1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911
He broke into a nuclear base as part of a protest against what they do
He was arrested under this act because he broke into the states property and
broke the law
He claimed their purpose for breaking in was to inform and raise awareness
of what they do there
The question was whether or not this was the same as intention
The judge said that they can have more than one purpose and even though
one of them was to raise public awareness, the other was to immobilise the
base for a period of time
He said it doesn’t matter what they call it, they intended to immobilise the
base and therefore they had the intention for this crime, the purpose was
objectively defined as the intention
