Intention in English Criminal Law - Essay Example

?Intention in English Criminal Law This essay shall be defining the meaning of intentions from various perspectives as taken forwards by the English Criminal Law. Before we move forward, it is imperative to understand the definition propounded by the House of Lords. Following is the basic legal definition of intention: “A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.”1 In criminal law, intention is defined as having a guilty mind, which is also known as mens rea. Intention is the thought process of the person who commits the crime in a determined and directed manner. It is the idea with which the person goes about committing the crime. Intention has been defined many times by the Court, and in all these cases the Court has looked up the meaning in an evolving manner. House of Lords in R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 defined intention as the following: “It is the foresight of a particular consequence and the desire to act or fail in order to give rise to those consequences”2 Understanding from the abovementioned definition, we infer that intention is not just the act of having a guilty mind, but goes much beyond it. It is the act of having a guilty mind along with the act of performing such necessary tasks, which are crucial to actuating the guilt, which is present in the mind. It has been considerably difficult to extract in the criminal case whether intention existed or not, however, it is pertinent to note that intention consisted of the entire act of committing the crime. It gives rise to the thought process and carries onwards until the criminal commits the criminal act. Intention is one of the “states of mind” which constitute the prerequisite mental state for mens rea. It is the source of the guilty mind. In any criminal case, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove that the person has committed the crime beyond any doubt. The prosecution has the responsibility to prove the case beyond the doubt of any reasonable man. Intention requires the highest degree of fault at all levels of mens rea. Mens rea is nothing but a thought process, and the act of mens rea, which is known as actus Reus drives the theory3. Actus reus is the form of act which gives practice to the thought of mens rea. During a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove that both contingencies existed. It is not enough to prove that there was the existence of actus reus or mens rea in isolation. Both the contingencies have to follow one another. Foresight is an important ingredient of the concept of intention in criminal law. In the case of R v Belfon (1976) 3 All ER 46, the courts said that foresight should not be equated or confused with recklessness. While foresight consists of a planned thought process, which has an end and a beginning, recklessness is a random act coming out of nowhere, which ends up in an act deemed to be criminal in nature. Foresight and the act and will to follow that thought process are the final straw in the coffin for the accused. If the prosecution can prove that the act was committed with a proper bite of foresight and was not a random act in isolation then the prosecution stands to win the case. It is the prerogative of the prosecution to ascertain that intention was there throughout the commition of the act. The thought of mens rea has to be consistently proved, and even if in one of the situation it is proved by the defense counsel that the thought process of mens rea is missing then the courts cannot ascertain that the act deemed to be criminal was committed by the accused, and he stands to be evicted. It is this doubt, which has to be removed by the prosecution, and therefore it is imperative to say that foresight was consistently present while the act was being committed4. The case of R. Molony (1985) shall be analyzed to further understand the definition of intention. The case involved an argument between the son and his stepfather over who can shoot faster with the gun. While engaging in the argument, the son ended up shooting his stepfather, which eventually killed him. The case went to the courts and the son was not charged with murder. It is important to understand the crux of the case. The prosecution argued that the son wanted to kill his dad and the argument was just an example and a ploy to kill his dad. However, the defense counsel stated that the son was trying to prove his point to the dad and ended up killing recklessly. The case stood at the crossroads on the definition of intention. Was there any intention by the son to kill his dad? In the opinion of the court it was not enough to say that the act was committed. It is also important to ascertain that there laid an intention at the hands of the perpetrator. The intention did not lie here to murder, but to prove a point and to win the argument. The son was under the challenge and he had to prove his dad wrong under any circumstances, even if it meant killing his dad. Also, the dad knew this very well while he was entering into the duel with his son. He must have understood and he was wise enough to know that something like this could have happen. Therefore, he was not a naive man and is he behaved like one then the fault lied with him as well. The intention to kill his dad did not exist with the son but only to defeat his dad in the argument, the son killed which was heightened up at the time his dad. The two most important questions, which have to be answered while dealing with intention, are: 1. was death or very serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? 2. did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? In the case of Mooley5, it was important to find the right answers to both the questions. Judges have also propounded over time that the accused might foresee a certain act getting into murder but that particular act might not be foreseen to have happened as murder. A person can have intention where they did not want the result, but merely foresee the act. In such cases the overall intention of the person to commit such act which resulted in murder would end up as non-existent. Getting back to the answers, let us look at the questions from the point of view of the defendant. Answering to the first question, the death did result as a natural consequence to the individual’s voluntary act. It is another thing that the person did not have any intention of causing death. The intention has to remain while the act is being committed. It might have been there at some other time, while at the time of the act it might have vanished. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the intention did exist while at the time of the death of the victim. The answer to the second question is a little difficult to answer, however, it must be answered. In the opinion of the author, the second question has to be answered in the affirmative. Yes, the defendant did foresee that as being the natural consequence of the act. However, it is important to know that foresight does not mean that intention existed. Because it was a competition, precisely the reason why the existence of foresight does not mean that intention existed. These two concepts can be differentiated and not be clubbed together in such an instance. It would not be enough to assume that since the foresight has been there the intention was also present. Maybe it was, maybe it was not. And since there is a doubt in such circumstance, we must assume that the murder was not committed by the accused. The cover of competition put a shield on the concept of intention, and this is what saved the accused from the charged of murder. In R v Hancock & Shankland (1986) 1 ALL ER 641, the judge has rightly put down the relation between foresight and intention. Under normal circumstances, intention and foresight are related with one another. The judge in the above case has mentioned that the more a person sees the foresight of a particular act, the more he intended to do it. Without having the foresight of the act would mean that he did not know whether the act he committed could have actually resulted in the death of the victim. So, all in all intention is linked heavily with foresight, and both concepts arise naturally with one another. Foresight eventually is a part of intention, acting as a subset of the concept of intention. The greater the probability of consequence, the much larger the chance that the intention existed in that scenario. Intention is closely aligned with the foresight of the act and both go hand in hand. If there is no foresight then there is no intention and likewise. The art of calculation of Intention Intention can never be confused with motivation. Motivation covers the wider angle while intention focused right on the reason and act of the guilty mind, which is the main ingredient behind the calculation of the murder. While understanding whether there was an intention or not once must understand that motivation has no relation with the intention of committing the murder. The next and the final step in this essay are to ascertain how to calculate and identify the concept of intention. While calculating intention, one must keep in mind the way the act has been committed. 6 While deconstructing the murder, the overall mindset of the accused has to be examined in order to arrive at the correct conclusion. Once the prosecution determines the mindset of the accused then the judge can go ahead and ascertain whether he indeed committed the crime or not. The concept of determining the mindset of the accused is very essential in understanding the intention behind it. In order to qualify as a murder, it is imperative that the act is looked from the point of view as direct intention or oblique intention. Direct intention happens in cases where the accused kills the person with the direct act of the consequence of making sure that the person dies and no other doubt of intention stays in his mind. He must not be distracted and should be very focused to kill the victim. Oblique intention happens when the person does commit the crime but the intention was to harm the person and not to eventually hurt the person so much that such injuries would eventually lead to his death. The distinction between the two is important to be understood when we are trying to calculate whether intention existed or not.7 The case of Woolin (1998)8 is the current authority on the definition of intention. It is very important that the person has the ability to foresight that the person will die and the only eventuality of the act of the accused would be the death of the victim. If there is any bit of the doubt that there could be an injury and not death then intention is missing in such circumstances. In the case, the judge said that the terrorist can never be accused of having killed people because he is never sure that the bomb he planted was eventually going to kill a person or injure them. Since death or injury is not virtually certain in such cases, one may assume that the intention to kill the people doesn’t exist if one looks at it from such perspective. However, it is very well understood that the overall intention is to kill people and the terrorist does plant the bomb with the knowledge and motivation of killing the people and that is why he gets the punishment for killing people. Conclusion The author reaches the conclusion with the question still lingering. Is there a comprehensive definition of intention? The answer to this question is no, there is never a comprehensive definition of intention and the definition varies from case to case depending upon the facts of the case. However, certain ingredients in the definition stay constant and these are the definitions and concepts which eventually lead the judges to ascertain the overall intention and the definition of intention depending upon the facts of the case. References R v Woollin (1998) 4 All ER 103 (HL) R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 R v Hancock & Shankland (1986) 1 ALL ER 641 Intent PlayV2('en/US/sg/sgdoslssdtshsoh7');playV2('en/UK/sg/sgdoslssdtshsoh7')." TheFreeDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013 Intention in the English Criminal Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. Academia.edu Mens Rea Lecture #1." Mens Rea Lecture. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. R v Nedrick (1986) 83 Cr. App. R. 267 R v Belfon (1976) 3 All ER 46 Read More